Plan aims to bring alignment, coherency and business perspective to S&T spending

Federal S&T Strategy

The federal government has released its long-awaited S&T Strategy that — if adequately supported and properly executed — could have a positive, long-term impact on how S&T and the commercialization of research contribute to Canada's social and economic prosperity. Entitled Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage, the strategy contains a high-level set of directions that situate S&T in the larger context of productivity and competitiveness.

Developed under the guidance of the Industry and Finance ministers, the strategy was unveiled May 17 at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo ON. Many observers contend that the presence of prime minister Stephen Harper — flanked by Industry minister Maxime Bernier, Finance minister James Flaherty and Privy Council president Rona Ambrose — indicate that S&T has moved up to become a central priority for the Conservative government.

From its opening diagnostique of current strengths and weaknesses through to its conclusion, the strategy argues that Canada must sustain its growing foundation of basic research while choosing areas where it can excel globally, or risk being overwhelmed by the competition. That means stimulating industry to take measures to become more innovative by boosting R&D outlays, increasing expenditures on machinery and equipment, hiring more S&T-trained personnel and enhancing interaction with university researchers and government laboratories.

The strategy's key thrusts are best examined from the perspective of the array of S&T initiatives announced in the last Budget (R$, March 26/07), as well as the Advantage Canada document released last fall by Finance minister Jim Flaherty as part of the Economic and Fiscal Update (R$, November 27/06). Advantage Canada set the stage for how S&T fits into the government's economic strategy, while the Budget contained several new initiatives that feature prominently in the strategy.

"It's a good strategy document. It lays out a philosophy and a set of big directions that need filling in. But that's the purpose of a strategy," says Dr Peter Nicholson, president of the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), which is funded by government but operates independently. "It deals with how S&T relates to social and economic development and proposes a better capture and pay-off from public S&T investments … We've built up good basic research and the strategy indicates that we're not going to squander that."

policy commitments

While it contains no new spending, the strategy does offer a handful of notable non-fiscal measures among a list of 35 policy commitments and previously announced spending initiatives listed at the end of the document. They cover all aspects of S&T, from policy formulation and external advice to strategic prioritization and program alignment, with industry being given greater input than at any time in history. That's not surprising, given the document's emphasis on creating conditions where business will increase investment in R&D, machinery and equipment and highly-skilled personnel.

Much of the strategy's impetus comes from the so-called "ideas-to-market" approach to innovation and commercialization. The strategy states that "firms invest in R&D to generate new products, services and technologies for domestic and global markets". It's a view not everyone agrees with.

Dr Douglas Barber, co-founder and former CEO of Gennum Corp, has long contended that Canada will not be able to achieve the social and economic well-being it aspires towards until policy makers and politicians unite to instill a culture of commerce.

"S&T is a means to an end. Trade and commerce are where we prosper and the strategy rarely mentions the importance of the customer," says Barber. "It does not appear that the government has been listening ... It isn't aware that we are backward in understanding how prosperity occurs. Low business R&D (spending) is a symptom, not a cause … You can't improve health and the environment if the economy is weak."

The strategy acknowledges that it builds upon the 1996 federal strategy — Science and Technology for the New Century. But in many important respects it also incorporates many elements of the previous government's incomplete innovation agenda.

The new strategy retains virtually all of the programs introduced by the Chrétien government — with the exception of the much maligned Technology Partnerships Canada — including those that supported infrastructure, indirect costs of university research, graduate students, research chairs, and sustainable technologies.

The major contribution it makes to previous strategies, however, is coherency and alignment — an astute recognition of the ad hoc manner in which Canada's innovation system has evolved over the past 15 years. The bulk of the strategy's public S&T initiatives aim to develop a systems approach to S&T by improving the effectiveness, accountability and returns of S&T investments and involving the business sector in determining future directions.

Advisory overhaul

The realignment starts with the governance and advisory structures underpinning S&T investment, with the collapsing of the Advisory Council on S&T (ACST), the Council of S&T Advisors (CSTA) and the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC) into the new Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC).

STIC will be comprised of representatives from the R&D-performing business community, the universities and colleges and departmental science advisory councils. It's hoped that by having a single body with industry providing advice on federal support for S&T externally and internally, STIC will be able to generate more traction at the political level than its predecessors. To date, the chair of STIC has not been announced and the process for populating the committee is still underway.

"I'm very happy with the single advisory body. Canada's Achilles Heel is the lack of coordination of local efforts. We need to leverage and coordinate local efforts and actively engage the private sector," says Dr Jacquelyn Thayer Scott, a member of the ACST since its inception and its co-chair from 2003 until its dissolution late last year. "The environment in which we operate has fundamentally changed in the last 10 years … We are a small, middle power and the potential for drift is enormous."

Augmenting the work of STIC as it relates to government departments and agencies is the revitalized ADM Committee on S&T. The ADM Committee is being given an enhanced mandate that includes implementing the S&T Strategy within government. Such a function assumes it will oversee the various initiatives being launched to better align federal S&T bodies.

The Strategy is silent on the role of the Office of the National Science Advisor. The NSA has maintained a low profile since being transferred from the Privy Council Office to Industry Canada with a diminished mandate and reporting path. Knowledgeable insiders say that it's only a matter of time before the office is either terminated or supplanted by a new body. Last fall, James Rajotte, Conservative MP and chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (IST), called for the creation of a chief scientist that may incorporate the current NSA (R$, November 27/06).

Within the Industry Canada portfolio, three organizations — Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), National Research Council (NRC), Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) — have been asked to align their programs with the objective of improving client service and enhancing return-on-investment and commercialization. The three bodies target distinct areas in the innovation chain, from basic/targeted research (NSERC), applied research (NRC) and seed and early-stage funding (BDC). Discussions are ongoing as to how to proceed, but if their efforts yield results, other Industry Canada organizations may follow suit.

commercialization

In Budget 2007, two new programs aimed at increasing commercialization were announced. The business-led NCEs program and the Centres of Excellence (CECR) in Commercialization and Research program give greater weight to industry priorities. They will be overseen by a private-sector led, tri-council board. It will guide implementation, as well as the two-stage approval process involving peer review with an international dimension and matching with priority areas identified by industry.

The business-led NCEs will receive $11 million a year, using $50 million in funding originally ear marked for Industry Canada's aborted pilot commercialization fund for universities (R$, April 6/04). The program is currently before Treasury Board finalizing terms and conditions, with the first call for proposals slated for this fall. The vast majority of existing NCEs are driven by research and the idea of the new program is to select others that focus on the needs of business. Ostensibly, companies will be able to apply to the program with a shared technical issue and research agenda, which will form the basis of a publicly supported network. Up to five new networks are anticipated.

CECR is the largest new program to date underpinning the strategy. As announced in the recent Budget, $155 million has already been committed to eight new and established centres, with another $195 million up for grabs in competitions slated over the next two years. RE$EARCH MONEY has also learned that an additional $90 million has been set aside beyond FY08-09 and that the government is prepared to support the centres over the long-term.

operating funds

Funding stability is critical for CECR as the program is dedicated to operating funds , filling a glaring gap in the current suite of S&T funding programs. Designed to complement the granting councils (salaries) and the Canada Foundation for Innovation (infrastructure), CECR will be enthusiastically endorsed by a number of major science facilities that have long complained that the ad hoc nature of securing operating funds is disruptive and time consuming.

In 2003, Dr Bill Thomlinson, executive director of the Canadian Light Source (CLS), helped to lead a high-level delegation to Ottawa to lobby for a one-stop source for operational funding (R$, May 6/03). And while the issue was taken up for study by the ACST, nothing was ever done until now.

Some of the research facilities eligible to compete under the new program include the CLS, TRIUMF, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory and the MaRS Discovery District. Of the eight centres selected by the Industry and Finance departments for early funding, they will be provided with $15 million over a multi-year period to be matched by the institutes from other sources. They will also be eligible to compete in future competitions.

The pre-selected centres range from fundamental research (Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics) to heavily applied and industry focused (National Optics Institute) and everything in between. The government appears eager to illustrate the kinds of centres that can be supported under CECR, which also correspond to the research priorities established in the strategy. But the absence of peer review in their selection has hit a raw nerve with many in the research community.

R$