Proposal to create a national academy of science gathers steam, but government's role in planning process questioned

The campaign to establish a national academy of science in Canada is rapidly gaining momentum, spurred on by a recent roundtable to discuss options and the decision to expand the sciences covered under such a body to include medicine and health. Yet divisions are threatening to emerge as the federal government assumes a leading role in the consultation and planning process - a role many contend is better suited for the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) since it had already made a formal proposal (R$, June 9/00).

Pushing the process forward in government circles is Dr Gilbert Normand, secretary of state for science, research and development, who is a strong supporter of the concept of an independent, multidisciplinary national academy of science. Normand also chaired the October 5 roundtable, which attracted more than 100 academics, researchers, institutional managers and private sector representatives. The next step is to strike a committee to develop an action plan, but Normand says no decision has been reached on who will head up the committee.

As science issues become more central to the decision-making process, Canada's lack of an appropriate body to provide expert advice on contentious issues is increasingly problematic. The federal government is coming under increasing pressure to establish a body that draws upon leading-edge scientific knowledge both within its borders and globally, but most observers contend that such an initiative should come from outside the political arena.

The logical choice would seem to be the RSC, which has been promoting the idea of an academy in conjunction with the Canadian Academy of Engineering (CAE) for several months (R$, June 9/00). But Normand says that, while the RSC proposal contains many valuable ideas, handing the lead to the RSC would show favouritism. He says he plans to meet with several organizations as he prepares a pitch to his Cabinet colleagues.

"I don't want to give the privilege to one over the other... I don't want to (make) the Royal Society the leader. Perhaps they will be an important member of the organization but I cannot tell them at the moment to take the lead ...because then the credibility will be in doubt," says Normand. "I think the more important recognition is that everybody (at the roundtable) agreed that we need this kind of organization. We are the only country out of the G-8 (that doesn't have a national science academy)."

Norman came to the realization that Canada required a national science academy independently from the RSC initiative. While attending a G-8 science minister's meeting, earlier this year, he noticed that he was the only delegate without an academy representative in attendance. Within a few short months, he decided to make it a major objective and announced his intention to hold a roundtable to gather relevant stakeholder opinion. While at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Normand used roundtables to gather expert advice on aquaculture and neutraceuticals.

For RSC president Dr William Leiss, government participation is a key element of the planning process, but as it now stands, the RSC/CAE proposal to establish an academy is still before government for consideration. Leiss says that if all the aims of the RSC/CAE proposal are embedded in an ultimate proposal to government, and Normand can offer a better plan, he's willing to get behind another initiative.

"It's not just 'Here's a cheque, go do your thing', and we don't want it to be. We want to be useful, and that means an ongoing dialogue between government providing the money and those that want to deliver on this public service," says Leiss. "The nice thing is, we agree on the underlying needs - the capacity to bring together a national organization - one that has credibility in the international arena that can discuss and evaluate for citizens highly complex issues related to the impact of science."

Although both sides are talking the talk of consensus and collaboration, there are concerns that the government should allow the RSC to lead the process as it winds its way towards government. Univ of Ottawa science policy professor Dr John de la Mothe contends that the RSC/CAE seems to have "dropped off the table" at the time when it should be used as a rough template for a future academy.

"There are too many cooks involved. The government should not be leading the consultation process because then it won't be independent," says de la Mothe. "I thought the RSC proposal was concrete and could serve as a basis to build on. We should move very quickly and come forward with a list of names to advise on the best structure this could take."

Both sides agree that a national academy of science should co-exist with existing science advisory bodies. Currently, Canada has a wide variety of advisory bodies ranging from the recently created external advisory bodies - Advisory Council on Science and Technology and the Council of Science and Technology Advisors - to more established groups such as the external committees advising specific federal departments and the horizontally focused Assistant Deputy Ministers' Committee on Science and Technology. Outside of government, a variety of industry associations advise and lobby government for their constituents in the high technology sector. There are also learned societies, policy think tanks and groups such as the RSC, CAE and the Partnership Group on Science and Engineering, which briefs government on behalf of more than 20 national scientific organizations.

The RSC and CAE are also encouraging the tiny Canadian Institute of Academic Medicine (CIAM) to reposition itself to become the seed of a Canadian academy of medical sciences. Leiss calls it the "third leg" in the RSC/CAE's proposed structure for the academy, encompassing every discipline relating to scientific endeavour. With the inclusion of a medical component, the estimate for the annual operating budget for an academy has been increased accordingly and is now estimated to be $2.9 million, up from $2.1 million.

"I think it strengthens our proposal. It will be independent because governments do not organize academies," says Leiss. "They must be a self-forming entity and the CIAM recognizes that it is too small. They cannot be an academy of medicine as they exist now because the model for that is to include all branches of medical science right across to veterinary science. We talked to them about setting up a working group of senior medical researchers that would investigate making the CIAM the seed of a larger academy of medicine, basically on the model of the British and French academies."

R$