Office of National Science Advisor sends science framework out for consultation

Goal to alleviate uncertainty

Proponents of a Canadian big science strategy are hoping that the latest attempt to create a framework for the evaluation, funding and administration of major science facilities will finally lead to official policy and practice. A draft document now being circulated by the Office of the National Science Advisor (ONSA) has been nearly two years in the making and has a May 15 deadline for feedback before being finalized and presented to Cabinet for approval this fall.

The absence of a coherent and workable policy for big science projects and facilities has been a major sore spot in the Canadian research community. Facilities like TRIUMF and the Canadian Light Source (CLS) spend inordinate amounts of time negotiating with a host of financing bodies to ensure the continued operation of their facilities. Backers of proposed projects — often scientists with limited knowledge of the political process — are unsure who they should be speaking to when pitching their ideas, leading to wasted time and confusion.

That confusion spreads into international science programs in which Canada is a partner, leading to accusations that Canada is failing to pull its own weight or not sufficiently serious to become a respected participant.

CLS executive director Dr Bill Thomlinson says the lack of a framework means Canada is virtually alone among industrialized nations . He has made it a personal mission to lobby for a stable operational environment for his and other big science facilities (R$, September 28/04). The draft framework addresses many of the scientific community’s concerns, but it fails to include existing projects – an oversight that will likely be corrected in future versions. Changes are also possible in the area of governance.

“We’ll see what the community feels about it, but existing large-scale infrastructure should factor into this,” says Dr Walter Davidson, director of national facilities at the National Research Council and the author of an early draft of the framework. “This document has to be expanded and changed to accommodate (existing facilities). Five-year funding cycles are quite stressful.”

Responsibility for evaluating and prioritizing proposals would fall to a Major Science Investment Panel (MSIP), which would also play a key role in project monitoring and oversight. To be located within the ONSA and chaired by the NSA, its members would include the presidents of the granting councils and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, as well as DMs from four science-based departments or agencies and two international experts. The MSIP would have a small permanent secretariat headed by a director. It could also play a role in designing a risk management process for big science projects based on global best practices. As chair, the NSA would provide briefings to Cabinet committees on top-ranked proposals. The initial task of the MSIP would be to complete a roadmapping exercise placing big science priorities within an overall national vision for science.

Although the MSIP is being proposed as part of the ONSA, the draft framework is careful to acknowledge the input of the granting agencies and the CFI both in setting priorities and developing funding recommendations. The MSIP would be limited to providing advice to Cabinet and its committees, since only a minister can present a memorandum to Cabinet.

Once a project is approved and funded, the MSIP would select a lead federal department and delegate responsibility for establishing an oversight and monitoring committee (OMC). The OMCs would play a direct role in ensuring that project partners live up to their commitments and that objectives are met. It would also recommend budget changes when necessary from the participating funding agencies or via an additional request to “the centre”.

The inclusion of the OMCs in the draft framework reflects the tensions over who will ultimately control large science facilities.

“There has to be a debate about who will run what and get the best solution,” says Davidson.

A copy of the draft framework can be viewed at www.nserc.ca.

R$