Good morning, everyone. Bonjour à tous.
Distinguished members of the committee, membres distingués du comité, I want to, first of all, thank you for the kind invitation to appear before you on the matter of the closure of the Office of the National Science Advisor.
To begin, I want to emphasize that my comments today are my own. They convey my experience, my commitment to, and my firm belief in the need for non-partisan, independent science advice at the highest levels of government, including Parliament.
I suspect you will realize that shaping and providing science advice for decision-makers is never easy. To begin with, as Dr. Alan Bromley, a Canadian who served as science advisor to President George W. Bush Senior, once said, “There is little in this world more useless than unwanted advice.” In other words, for advice to be effective, there must be a receptor willing and able to use it.
Secondly, as science advisor you need not only a good fundamental understanding and appreciation for science across a very broad spectrum of interests, but also the patience and wisdom to distill insights from many perspectives.
No science advisor, of course, can possibly be an expert on everything. Inevitably then, you must rely on the goodwill, the expert advice, and the support of many individuals and communities that have an interest in the scientific issues of the day. The ultimate goal must be to provide credible, well-founded, non-partisan advice on how science and technology and knowledge and innovation can improve the social and economic well-being of the country.
In Canada, following the announcement of the discontinuation of my office, a debate has emerged that will hopefully trigger a more holistic and intuitive approach to providing science advice to government. Here is a short reflection on lessons learned from my experience as the country’s national science advisor from 2004 to 2008.
First of all, it's important to underscore that the science and technology ecosystem in Canada has evolved tremendously over the past decade or so. This has had major benefits for Canada and Canadians. With over $15 billion of incremental funding invested in research and knowledge generation over that period, Canada is leading the way on many fronts. For instance, we are the leader in the G8 group of advanced countries in terms of investment in university research as a percentage of GDP. We have developed innovative new models of funding and governance such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Research Chairs, Genome Canada, and the recently expanded Networks of Centres of Excellence.
Such is their success that these models are being cloned in other countries around the world. Research institutes dedicated to foundational science, such as the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, a public-private partnership funded in part through personal philanthropy, have captured the world’s attention, and MaRS, the Medical and Related Sciences Discovery District in downtown Toronto, a meeting place and accelerator for innovation, is a new model to foster technology transfer and commercialization.
I'd also say that Canada punches well above its weight in many international research ventures, and the excellence of Canadian contributions to major science projects in areas such as astronomy, ocean sciences, neutrino science, synchrotron science, particle physics, and structural genomics draws global recognition.
I am proud to say that I have been involved as an advocate and supporter for many of these major science initiatives in my NSA, national science advisor, capacity and before that. These successes notwithstanding, however, Canada needs to continue to invest at a high level to maintain our competitive advantage. It would be so easy, having climbed one mountain, to slide quickly down the other side.
However, if one looks around the world, a sound innovation and research system requires more than just scientific excellence and funding. Any S&T approach needs to be strengthened with commitment and leadership in an effective and stable framework that engages advice at the highest levels and stimulates an open dialogue on the future course of research for society.
Now, I say “stable” because the frequent dismantling of our science advisory capacity in the past has left little option but to constantly start afresh with relatively few lessons learned.
The advice in question needs to be fully shared. So I strongly believe that for Canadians to fully appreciate both the lights and the shadows of science and technology, for our science culture and literacy to grow, and for innovation standings to improve, the debate on policy choices for future directions must be aired publicly, much as you do here in this respected standing committee.
I am therefore dismayed and disappointed that the Office of the National Science Advisor is being wound down. I was informed in October that with the evolution of the S and T strategy, my office would be phased out early in the new year 2008 and that the position of national science advisor would be discontinued. So I want to make it unambiguously clear that I conveyed my intention to retire from the public service only after I had been informed that the office was being closed.
Although our office was inadequately funded—it had no permanent staff other than me from year one until an executive assistant was added in 2006—I believe we accomplished a great deal with the limited resources available. As examples of issues we took on, I cite the following.
The national science advisor's office was instrumental in advocating at the highest level for the establishment and funding of the Canadian Academies of Science. This was announced in the response to the Speech from the Throne in October 2004 and in the budget of 2005. The Council of Canadian Academies, as it's now called, is operating with a $30 million endowment to undertake expert assessments of the state of science, underpinning issues that have a public policy impact.
Our office provided key input and interventions leading to the creation of a national secretariat and the government's decision to invest $150 million in the International Polar Year, a global collaboration involving over 60 countries.
In collaboration with the heads of research councils and agencies, we led a national consultation on the development of a framework for the funding, evaluation, and oversight of Canadian major science investments and infrastructure, a framework that in my view is still critical.
In partnership with the former Advisory Council on S&T and with an international panel of experts that I convened, in 2005 we developed a draft national strategy for nanotechnology.
With the cooperation of our aid agencies and other departments, we developed an action plan to help mobilize our R and D efforts towards the needs of the developing world. I'm pleased to see that this has been picked up in part by the budget 2008 announcement of a development innovation fund.
The national science advisor and our office also worked closely with Foreign Affairs and International Trade to secure funding for and to design the international S and T partnerships program that is now providing $20 million for enhanced partnerships with Israel, Brazil, China, and India.
To take advantage of emerging opportunities in research and innovation with key trading partners, I championed the creation of the Canada-California Strategic Innovation Partnership, CCSIP, and through many presentations and visits, I've helped, and our office has helped, raise the profile of Canadian science and technology in our G8 partner countries such as Germany, Japan, the U.K., and France.
I've represented the government at the twice-yearly Carnegie Group meetings of the G8 science ministers and science advisors since June 2004. This is a unique forum designed to exchange information and ideas of mutual global concern in an informal setting with our key partners. I had the pleasure to host one of those meetings in Canada in 2005.
Our office also worked closely with other agencies and councils to outline a new governance framework for our science advisory apparatus. We also commissioned a paper that showed how other countries function effectively with a solid combination of high-level science advice from a science advisor, coupled with input from a science advisory council.
One of the significant achievements of our office over the last four years has been the development of a unique capacity in Canada to undertake science and technology foresight.
—that is technology foresight—
looking over the horizon for future opportunities and challenges.
I could go on and give you many other areas where my office has made a contribution, but this will have to suffice.
In mid-2006 our office was moved from the PCO to Industry Canada, with the science advisor then reporting to the Minister of Industry. The mandate letter from the former industry minister circumscribed our activities to three areas, so with a diminished mandate, the scope of our work was reduced and our office became increasingly marginalized, and despite our expressed interest in contributing, we had relatively little input to the crafting of the S and T strategy and were not asked to participate in the consultations that took place across the country.
The frustration of all this has been that while my office has lots of knowledge and insights to offer, we have rarely been asked to play an important role and contribute as a true partner. Through all of this, I have tried to maintain a policy of professionalism, public engagement, and partnership with all key stakeholders, be they domestic or international.
Over the course of the past four years I and my staff have given well over 300 talks, presentations, and papers on key issues as well as on the Canadian advantage in research and innovation. We have received countless visits and delegations from many countries seeking our input to the Canadian success stories and models, and I might say also they have been seeking our advice on key issues.
In my mind there is absolutely no doubt that science and technology are impacting our lives in ways that were unimaginable even a decade ago. Almost every issue before government has a science and technology element, and our economic and societal prosperity increasingly depend on it. In other words, there has never been a time in history when science and innovation are so important and when scientific input is so vital to decision-making.
I continue to believe that the need for sound, impartial advice to government on national and global issues and developments in knowledge has never been greater.
Other advanced and developing countries alike have recognized this need and have embedded a strong science advisory capacity, including a science advisor or chief scientist, at the very centre of government.
I have received a very large number of calls, e-mails, and letters from the concerned public about the decision to close the office, and I want to publicly acknowledge this support both from Canadians and international partners alike. They all agreed this has the potential to tarnish our image as a leading player in science and technology, and the fact that we've received such support only serves to underscore the need for a closer look at how we design our science governance systems as new issues emerge that will require sound scientific input.
We can certainly learn from elsewhere while keeping in mind our own national specificities, and most importantly, this exploration needs to be done in an open and consultative fashion.
Thank you for your attention.
