Federal S&T report calls for changes to structure, capacity and governance

Long-awaited release

An expert panel charged with recommending improvements to federal science, engineering and technology has called for a new Department of Science and Technology — Science Canada — led by a minister of S&T to "provide leadership on science and technology matters". The recommendation is one of seven contained in a report which was released a year ago but remained elusive until the election of the new Liberal government.

Consideration of a new department appears to be a non-starter though, according to the head of the DMs of S&T committee that was asked by the Clerk of the Privy Council to make recommendations on how the effectiveness of federal S&T can be improved.

"A new department is a machinery change. We can't do that. The prime minister and the Privy Council can," says Dr Bruce Archibald, president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and DM Champion of science and technology. "We can do it with existing structures ... Better integration is the goal and we can do that now."

Chaired by Ken Knox, a consultant and chair of the Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC), the Expert Advisory Group on Government Science and Technology found that federal S&T is highly fragmented, uses outdated human resources tools, is saddled with aging buildings and equipment, and poorly integrated into the national science and innovation ecosystem.

The shortcomings are making it difficult for federal science-based departments and agencies (SBDAs) to attain economies of scale, work effectively with other S&T players, adapt to the rapidly changing nature of science and pull together a critical mass of shared capabilities that contribute value to the entire S&T ecosystem.

"In our view, a Minister of Science and Technology supported by a new department, ScienceCan, would provide the necessary leadership, visibility and critical mass to deliver government S&T more effectively and to help Canada embrace the future," states the report. "We see considerable merit in an approach in which the government's R&D staff ... would become part of ScienceCan. These personnel would be administratively clustered under a small set of broad policy domains (but) would remain embedded in the SBDAs that they serve."

Archibald says the new Liberal government has already moved in this area with the appointment of a "full minister" of Science (Kirsty Duncan) who he says "understands the importance of science".

"Government should not be limited to the role of ‘market fixer' or ‘passive financier' of public R&D; it should also be an entrepreneur, risk taker and market creator, thereby making it a critical player in generating conditions for economic growth via S&T and innovation." — Report of the Expert Advisory Group on Government S&T

The panel was struck at the request of the Clerk of the Privy Council on behalf of the Deputy Minister Science and Technology Committee (DMSTC) which has conducted various reviews of internal federal S&T. The panel's mandate was explicitly "not intended as a cost-savings or ‘efficiency' exercise but rather as an ‘effectiveness' review".

Allocating more money to the perennially cash-starved SBDAs was also beyond the scope of the panel. But the panel did note that "given the current state of federal S&T infrastructure, substantive investment will be required for Canada to remain competitive on the world stage".

The five-member panel was asked to produce a report that will "define what types of government S&T are critically important … articulate principles and criteria … examine the current delivery of S&T functions across government and develop options and recommendations for enhancing performance (and) outline different partnership options".

"The Industry portfolio has placed high priority on private sector R&D, innovation and commercialization, and rightly so as Canada's performance in these areas is important and a source of concern. However, this emphasis has also meant that much of government S&T, particularly its public good aspects and its potential synergies with research in the higher education sector ... often gets overlooked." —Report of the Expert Advisory Group on Government S&T

Archibald says greater collaboration, clusters and shared facilities with other players in the innovation ecosystem can be accomplished without additional funds.

"We're being challenged to do a better job with the resources that we have," he says. "We need to take ownership and leadership to achieve the objectives of the government."

The 40-page ScienceCan report (and accompanying 308-page volume of supporting material) fits into a larger initiative to modernize the public service under the title Destination 2020 and driven by the Office of the Privy Council. That report specifies four core principles or "solution domains that are adopted by ScienceCan — a capable, confident and high-performing workforce, a modern workplace that makes smart use of technologies, an open and networked environment and a whole-of-government approach.

Not surprising the expert panel found federal S&T insufficiently connected within the 12 major SBDAs and other government players, with traditional hierarchies increasingly incompatible with the complex, multidisciplinary challenges facing Canada and Canadians. That makes it difficult to align the approximately $5 billion currently spent on intramural S&T with the broad, multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral public policy challenges that increasingly inform modern S&T challenges and objectives.

"There is increasing recognition that the current model of government S&T needs to evolve in relation to persistent internal challenges and changing external realities ... The effectiveness of government S&T and robustness of our economy will decline over time unless changes are made" — Report of the Expert Advisory Group on Government S&T

"There's a strong sense — reinforced by the new government — that we need to work better horizontally. There are perceived management and authority barriers which the Clerk said for us to examine because we are getting to a critical point," says Archibald. "The advisory group provided us with a good rationale to get on with it on our own. It's like a roadmap and we don't need authority from Treasury Board or Cabinet to do it."

The recommendation for a new senior portfolio — a Department of Science and Technology to augment the work of Industry Canada — was not adopted by the new Liberal government. Instead it renamed Industry Canada as Innovation Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) and established provided science with a full ministerial position within government. Whether the incoming Liberal government even knew about the ScienceCan report is unclear.

The panel broke the science and innovation ecosystem into four quadrants: public good, fundamental science, private sector (commercialization) and disruptive technologies. While the latter was beyond the scope of its mandate, the panel noted that other nations have programs and agencies to "foster emerging, disruptive technologies that create new markets".

"We propose that Canada needs to exhibit greater leadership in this domain by exploring ways and means to spur development of these disruptive technologies to enhance protection and prosperity for Canada and Canadians," states the report. "Canada needs to look into the "ARPA (the US Advanced Research Projects Agency)" model and give serious consideration to a "Can ARPA" — in consultation with all actors and stakeholders from the science and innovation ecosystem and our civil society at large."

For fundamental science, the report recommends grouping the granting councils and relevant federal S&T into a new portfolio focussed on ‘public S&T'. It stresses the need for "better incentives and greater capability for people to move between quadrants of the ecosystem" and the "the ability to undertake cross-sectoral scientific interchanges so that academia, government and the private sector all develop a greater appreciation of their respective and collective challenges and capabilities and collaborate on common goals" — a critical environment for the launch of FA3STnets (Federated Anticipatory, Adaptive, Advanced S&T Networks) (see chart).

"We took this recommendation to heart. We're now trying to find a couple of priorities we could tackle with a collective science approach," says Archibald. "It could be anti-microbial resistance with the Public Health Agency taking the lead. It's a great opportunity to use a coordinated approach like FA3STnet. The concept is totally consistent with the advice we received for establishing a common set of objectives and coordinated action."

For the private sector and commercialization, the panel encourages "greater mobility and collaboration between federal S&T and the private sector" as well as the adoption of open government and open science as an "important "lubricant" that helps innovations flow more easily through the commercialization process to both private and public markets." The National Research Council, which has been transformed into an industry facing Research and Technology Organization, would be a key component of this portfolio.

Advisory group chair Ken Knox declined to be interviewed for this article.

R$