Paul Dufour

Perspectives in science policy

How to Recognize a Minister for the Future

By Paul Dufour

I have yet to meet someone with a business card that says Minister for the Future — at least not yet. Some would say it is almost an oxymoron. But in the late 1960s, a great deal of foment and open public debate was underway in capitals around the globe to re-assess where governments stood on planning and investing for the future and more specifically, what role research and the sciences could contribute to mid- and long-term national economic and social goals.

For its part, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — then a 22 member think tank organization based in Paris, now expanded to 38 members — was examining the research systems of different countries. Canada was its 10th target, and in late 1969, in the afterglow of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, the OECD published the results of its efforts in both official languages.

Some of the OECD work had been triggered by the International Statistical Year of 1964 through reports and studies to develop better comparator statistics for science and research spending and outputs These were the origins of the so-called Frascati Manual which today is the methodological standard for looking at S&T expenditures globally.

The 400-page plus volume on Canada undertook the usual procedure for such reviews. An international expert panel (from the OECD, France and Japan) was appointed to visit Canada and develop information and data based on specific questions about the national research system. A so-called "confrontation" meeting took place in Paris with selected senior Canadian officials to respond to the key findings of the report before its release. Among these officials were the honourable CM (Bud) Drury, then chair of the Privy Council Committee on scientific and industrial research and slated to become Canada's third minister of state for science and technology; the chief science adviser to the Cabinet, Robert Uffen, and the presidents of the National Research Council and Science Council of Canada, William Schneider and Omand Solandt respectively.

It's useful to flag some key points in the report and from the consultation meeting. The OECD recommendations included:

* A minster for science without departmental responsibility be established deriving authority from the prime minister;

* A Science Policy Council (of independent experts) to advise the government on scientific matters through a science minister;

* A Government Research Board of various science-based departments represented by their most senior officials to assist in interdepartmental coordination;

* A strengthened, more focussed role for Canadian universities to serve national goals through multi-disciplinary groups; and,

* A single comprehensive granting agency combining the functions of the then Medical Research Council, the Canada Council and NRC (which was then supporting university research as well).

It should surprise no one that the OECD report focused on the need to increase the emphasis on industrial R&D related to national objectives, as well as addressing the weak exploitation of new technologies and lack of entrepreneurship. This will resonate today with analyses of the country's overall innovation approach. Indeed, more recently, the OECD has commented on Canada's relatively weak business R&D intensity when examining overall economic development.

In 1969, along with commenting on matters of decentralization of research excellence and regional economic development, a major issue was the rather thin university-industry interaction in research, especially when considering the American experience in this area. The OECD had just reviewed the US science system and noted that the Canadian domestic market was perhaps too small to justify large-scale production or substantial expenditure on industrial R&D.

Within a North American market context, Canadian industry could certainly orient itself towards selective specialization. Canadian officials responded by noting the existing specialization in such areas as bush aircraft, and communications and air navigation equipment. (For the purists, in 1988, the OECD also reviewed the regional innovation policies of the four Western provinces and laid out a need for those provinces to enhance industry-university interactions as well as a supporting environment for innovation in selected technology areas).

With respect to the perception of poor entrepreneurship, Canadian officials noted that the deficiency was widely recognized, while signalling that the government of the day had introduced a program designed to share half of the risks involved in launching new products or processes (Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology - PAIT). Much was also made of the foreign ownership issue with Canada home to a large number of branch plants conducting little domestic R&D. But here again, it was noted that a form of "world product mandate" was being awarded to some Canadian-based subsidiaries for global markets.

External reports from organizations like the OECD can serve as useful lenses for issues that remain long-term, complex and challenging at a domestic level. Forty years ago, the OECD Canada report did just that. A flurry of debates, reports and policy decisions were under review and others followed. Some were influenced by the OECD thinking, others by national economic and social considerations.

Above all, however, the focus of this activity remained on science policy as a means to other ends. As the OECD report put it, "The Canadian government expects national scientific activities to contribute to the quantitative and qualitative progress of the economy" (and the society, it should be added). Indeed, minister of state for science and technology Mr Drury was to articulate these objectives in 1975 as: a) policy for the support of science; b) policy for the application of scientific and technological resources; and c) science in public policy.

Today, the Canadian science policy landscape is populated with a large number of players all of whom could usefully consider more strategically their respective roles in helping shape a national effort that both reflects the fast-moving nature of knowledge production in Canada and abroad and resonates with the specific needs of the country. After all, effective public policy is essentially a course of action designed to help shape a positive and sustainable future for citizens.

Paul Dufour is a veteran observer of Canadian science policy. He can be reached at paulicyworks@gmail.com.