Broadening the scope to understand complex issues: Q&A with Tijs Creutzberg

The Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) is a not-for-profit organization that convenes the best experts in their respective fields to assess the evidence on complex scientific topics of public interest, to inform decision-making in Canada. Led by a board of directors and guided by a scientific advisory committee, the CCA’s work encompasses a broad definition of science, incorporating the natural, social and health sciences as well as engineering and the humanities. In July, the CCA’s board appointed Dr. Tijs Creutzberg, PhD (photo at right) as the president and CEO. Creutzberg has been with the CCA for more than a decade, including seven years as director of assessments, where he oversaw more than 30 expert panel assessments. He has been working at the interface of policy, science, and technology for over 25 years, specializing in public policy, public administration and strategy in the areas of science and technology, innovation and economic development. Creutzberg talked with Mark Lowey, Research Money’s managing editor, about why the CCA is needed, how it has evolved with Canada’s changing science, research and innovation ecosystem, the CCA’s strategic plan and his longer-term vision for the organization.

R$:  The CCA has been providing expert assessment on complex scientific topics since its first report, The State of Science and Technology in Canada, in 2006. Given that the federal government is relying more on consultants these days – and has also increased its own scientific workforce – is there still a need for the CCA’s advice into the policy process

TC:  Absolutely there is a need. That need is increasing, both for the CCA and the work we do. As with most other countries, we face many complicated, complex policy issues in a time of rapid change – social, environmental, in scientific technologies. Not just that, but there’s also this continual expansion of knowledge.

The value then of the CCA is unique. We are dedicated strictly to assessing evidence with panels of experts, with independence and neutrality. Through this, we’re really able to help in establishing reliable pictures of complicated issues and helping clarify lines of debate, providing multidisciplinary consensus on what we know and what we don’t know about these important policy topics.

I think this is very useful and then critical for anyone looking to advance policy files and priorities. Policymakers in the federal government know that they can rely on CCA assessments. Our assessments are authoritative sources of knowledge and [the policymakers] do rely on them for making decisions. We see that in some of the metrics we track, in citations in government documentations or citations in Parliamentary records.

Yes, consultants are out there. But we offer something that’s unique and is really quite important these days.

R$:  You’ve been with the CCA for more than a decade, including seven years as director of assessments. Has the CCA and the nature of its assessments changed during that time, given that Canada’s science and research landscape has evolved?

TC:  I’ve been involved in over 40 assessments. For sure, there have been changes. The nature of the questions that come to the CCA tend to be broader in scope, requiring an assessment of a wider range of knowledge. They’re not just [involving the] scientific, but also the legal and the ethical and, increasingly, Indigenous knowledge. All of that is brought into the deliberations.

Part of that is reflected in the questions we get which are more cross-cutting, insofar as we often don’t have just one or two sponsors asking for an assessment. It can be five, 10, 15 [federal] departments and agencies all sponsoring a single assessment.

What this speaks to is an interdependence on some of these complicated, complex issues. It’s within the jurisdiction of many departments and agencies, whether it’s a topic like circular economy or climate change risks. It depends on the kinds of questions we’re getting.

When we think about what we are doing at the CCA, we’re also doing some changes. We’re putting a lot more time and effort in mobilizing the assessments. When these reports go out there, we really do try to make sure that all of the relevant actors in the policy space of that topic are engaged in the release and mobilization of the assessment. Because these are broad topics, that’s quite a lot [of relevant actors], and it cuts across the federal and provincial spaces, and public and private sectors as well.

We’ve observed that the experts agree to volunteer because they know that what they do as part of a CCA panel will have an impact. Our job is to make sure these reports have impact. [The experts who volunteer] want to make change, they want to see change happen in Canada.

As the CCA, we are adapting and evolving. We’re embracing the [advancing] approaches and technologies, too, in trying to improve the quality of what we do in every assessment. We’re also trying to be more responsive to different types of requests. We’re doing quite a lot more, for example, in the topics that involve Indigenous knowledge.

R$:  Budget 2004 committed to several changes in the federal research support system, including a new capstone research funding organization and a new Advisory Council on Science and Innovation? Do you see opportunities for evolution and collaboration for the CCA amid these changes?

TC:  We’ve certainly given this some thought. We like these changes. They’re very interesting changes and they do present opportunities for us. The capstone organization has a multidisciplinary focus and that aligns well with our own multidisciplinary focus. Because of that, CCA is well positioned here to help inform some of the research priorities.

[CCA can also provide advice on] addressing issues specific to the research system in Canada. We have done this in the past on topics like the future of Arctic research, the labour market transition, and ocean research priorities. I think we can do a lot more in this space, potentially collaborating with this capstone organization. I think our independence and neutrality and being a convenor of expertise really does play well into supporting an organization like this.

[As for the new advisory council], I don’t know if we would have a seat at the table. That is a possibility. But I do think there’s an opportunity here for some sort of formal linkage, such that in the assessment work that we do we bring the chairs [of the expert panels] to present to this [advisory council], because so much of what we do would be relevant to this group. So we would be reporting on some of the findings, but also CCA is well positioned to be responsive to the needs and requests coming out of this group.

R$:  What sort of projects/assessments does the CCA have in the pipeline? Can you talk a bit about two or three of these?

TC:  Some of that pipeline is visible on our website. We’ve got four projects right now underway. Two of those reports will be released in the fall and the other two are just getting going. The ones that we’re releasing in the fall are on the EDI initiatives from the post-secondary research system (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Practices in the Post-secondary Research System), and the second one is on the role of technology in Canada’s food production systems looking at atypical food production (Atypical Food Production Technologies for Canadian Food Security).

The other ones we’ve started are assessing the state of science, technology and innovation (The State of Science, Technology and Innovation in Canada). We’ve done this type of assessment periodically over the years. Now with the old STIC group [Science, Technology and Innovation Council] no longer doing the “state-of-the-nation” [on STI], the CCA is now the one group doing this on a periodic basis. The panel has just started up and it’s a big one. We’re looking to have this report out around late fall next year.

We’re also doing this other assessment on the dual use of research of concern (Balancing Research Security and Open Science for Dual-Use Research of Concern). We’re looking at the tension between open science and research security. The research community as a whole is committed to open science, but now within the new research security context there’s a real tension there.

Beyond those, we actually don’t know [what assessment requests will be made]. We’re expecting to hear from the minister [of Innovation, Science and Economic Development] within days as to which assessments they’re referring to us this year. 

R$:  The Strategic Science Fund (SSF) recently invested in the CCA and the CCA has a new strategic plan coming out this fall. Can you talk a bit about the CCA’s strategic plans and your longer-term vision for the organization?

TC:  Receiving the five years of SSF funding was very good news for us. I think it really underscores CCA’s value to the federal government and to Canadians more broadly.

As for our strategic plan, this will really look to strengthen what CCA does best, but also looking to adapt to a wider range of requests and new assessment products. And also to give focus not just to federal government policy issues but also to the provinces and other organizations across Canada and internationally, really looking to make CCA more accessible and more available, beyond the federal government.

We’re looking to become sustainable and within the five years [of our strategic plan] to grow and become more flexible, more relevant and have more impact. To be more relevant and have more impact across the country. Within that context, we’re looking to be more responsive to different kinds of requests for evidence, different kinds of products. And to be more visible in Canada and internationally.

R$: The polls are telling us there’s a good chance we’ll see a change in federal government with the next election. What impact would this have on the CCA; do you think a new government will see value in the organization continuing its work?

TC:  Having been around for longer than this current government, I’ve seen the CCA [go through] government transitions. Our value proposition truly is as relevant to this government and the next. Regardless of political stripes, the policy issues are there.

Because we are upstream in the evidence ecosystem, the CCA doesn’t make recommendations. We are upstream, we are providing a foundation of knowledge. In doing that, we deliver evidence without agendas, and I think that’s where our value is for all stripes of government. It’s our independence, the quality of our work, it all transcends partisan interests.

So do I think there’ll be value in [the CCA’s work]? Yes, I do. We saw value during the Conservative government years, they were interested in the work that we do. We would expect if the government were to change, there would be continued interest.

We’re ready to be helpful for the federal government and the research community at large. The message going forward is we’re doing a wider range of work and different types of work.

R$