Proposed government science program aims to integrate federal research with other players in series of focused networks

A proposed new collaborative program is offering the best opportunity the federal S&T community has had in years to significantly boost its science capacity. As conceived and developed over the past five months, the Federal Innovation Networks of Excellence (FINE) program has been included in the forthcoming Innovation Paper and is poised to capitalize on the government’s commitment to double its investment in R&D over the next decade.

FINE is being modelled closely on the highly successful and internationally recognized Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) program. The initiative would integrate federal science capacity with science from the private sector, the post-secondary community or internationally. It would focus on emerging science in three areas — policy, commercialization (wealth creation) and service to Canadians — and networks would pursue all three simultaneously rather than sequentially.

The program’s architects contend that FINE could be an effective and influential instrument for harnessing the entire science capacity within the country and focusing it on areas deemed to be in the national interest. An initial group of four science ADMs has now grown to include science ADMs from all the science-based departments and agencies, and a working group has been established to flesh out the proposal.

Several emerging areas have already been identified as likely networks should the program be given the green light — water, national security and counter-terrorism, food security, and aspects of biotechnology such as the genetically modified content of food and other products. Not surprisingly, the areas receiving the most attention are water and national security. Both were recently cited as priority items by Andrei Sulzenko, senior ADM at Industry Canada and co-chair of the ADM Committee on Science and Technology (ADM CST).

Dr Robert Slater, senior science ADM at Environment Canada and the ADM CST’s other co-chair, says federal science would benefit from being integrated with the work of universities and the private sector. “We hold this to be a good thing and it’s being enthusiastically embraced by all participants,” says Slater. “The networks would concentrate on emerging science, as opposed to mandated science, which we know on a public policy basis are areas where we need more knowledge. We saw this as collaborative because there is no single issue you can handle in a single organization anymore.”

So far, the all-important issue of funding has not been part of the discussions, but Dr Peter Hackett, the National Research Council’s VP research, says the current funding levels of the NCEs serves as a general indicator of what is required.

“If you think about networks and the NCE program, you’ve got an idea of what is needed. I think $20 million over five years sort of frames it. We should do one or two networks as an experiment and show the value of it,” he says. “Up to 30% of government research could flow along horizontal lines and that’s a really radical change.”

Much work remains to develop the concept, as well as a governance model to determine theme and network selection, administration and criteria to be used for excellence. Throughout the process, the NCE will be a huge information source as the FINE details are worked out. But there is already consensus that many of that program’s attributes will also apply. Peer review will likely be used to determine the level of excellence of a network’s science, and each network would have a limited life span, tentatively five years to start with the possibility of a second term of equal length if further research is required to reach a network’s objectives. Once a network has run its course, the resulting science would be reintegrated back into government or spun off into other sectors.

The next few months will be critical in determining whether the proposal will make the transition to an actual funded program, although recent events have apparently bolstered its chances. Hackett says the water tragedy in Walkerton ON and the terrorist attacks on the US have pushed two key science issues to the fore, prompting government to consider propositions on how to deal with them

“A number of research performers in government and elsewhere each have a piece of the puzzle. Many people have a role to play,” he says.

The proponents of FINE are hoping their proposal will convince Ottawa that the time has arrived to re-invest strategically in federal science capacity. But the outcome is still far from certain. Slater says the decision on FINE will ultimately be a Budget decision and that the government’s fiscal outlook will be a key determinant.

“It’s not at the political level yet although this package has been taken to Cabinet as part of the Innovation Paper,” says Slater. “When the Innovation Paper becomes public, we would then associate ourselves with the consultation process and also put emphasis on an internal conversation, chatting with our science managers in a systematic and organized fashion.”

Regardless of the uncertainty ahead, Slater says the federal S&T community has come together in support of FINE, and he gives it a far better chance of success than previous attempts to build science capacity over the past few years.

Since the dark days of Program Review and associated budget cuts, the capacity of Canada’s innovation players has shifted with universities and the private sector taking on much larger roles. But a series of reports by the Council of Science and Technology Advisors has helped to crystalize the direction and function federal S&T should be taking. By proposing to integrate federal science more effectively into the national system of innovation, the backers of FINE hope the political will exists to put the concept to the test. Failure of the proposal would be construed as a major setback.

“If you look at the past few years, FINE is like a line in the sand,” says Hackett. “It’s kind of important that we get a positive response to this in the next year.”

R$