Federal science and policy functions require better integration — report

Canadian Centre for Management Development

A new report says federal scientists and policy makers should act more like a rugby team than relay race runners if they want to produce research that benefits Canada and Canadians. Entitled Creating Common Purpose: The Integration of Science and Policy in Canada’s Public Service, the document by the Canadian Centre for Management Development (CCMD) aims to help scientists and policy makers overcome barriers that hamstring their ability to work together.

The Ottawa-based CCMD assembled what it calls an Action-Research Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, chaired by Dr Arthur May, to explore the weaknesses in the science/policy interface and suggest ways in which progress to date can be disseminated and extended further. It points out that some work in this area has already been completed, notably the 1999 report — Science Advice for Government Effectiveness by the Council for Science and Technology Advice — and last year’s A Framework for Science and Technology Advice produced by the federal departments and agencies themselves.

“At present, several issues at the interface of science and policy hinder integration between science and policy workers within the public service,” states the report (see chart). “Advances in science are emerging at an increasing pace, driving demand on the part of policy-makers for information and advice.”

The CCMD report calls for a “new paradigm of common purpose and integration” to bridge the divide between the two communities and has identified four “cornerstones” for making progress:

Roles within Science & Policy Communities – Employees within the science-based departments and agencies (SBDAs) often don’t see their contributions to their departmental mandates. Scientists must be made aware that they have a role contributing to policy, while policy makers are expected to seek advice from scientists.

Organization of Work – The way in which SBDAs are traditionally organized segregates science and policy functions. Workers need to be mobilized around specific issues rather than their functions and relevant communities. Physical separation preventing this type of organization should be eliminated, at least virtually.

Training & Development – A solid core of communication needs to be established between the two communities, as well as education on basic science issues at play in Canadian society. Decision-makers need to recognize that scientific uncertainty stems from science knowledge — an issue that is especially relevant in light of the Federal Precautionary Approach Framework now under development within government. Learning opportunities for both communities must be created, as well as placement exchanges and liaisons between policy makers and research teams. The report notes several examples in which these kinds of initiatives have already been initiated.

Rewards & Recognition - Incentives are essential to strengthening the interface between science and policy, and reinforcing the value of work. Each group must also be recognized equally for their contribution to integrating science and policy. This poses a challenge for research scientists, who are not promoted by competing for new positions, but by attaining specific levels of productivity and development. There must be a clearly defined balance between scientific publication productivity and efforts that lead to advancing departmental missions, with the latter involving a shifting of current emphasis. Good team players and the contributions of entire sciencepolicy teams must also be recognized.

LARGER ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED

The report makes clear that it does not address some of the larger key issues surrounding government S&T, although it provides several suggestions for action that require future study. Areas not considered by the roundtable include: the integration of science into departmental strategic planning; whether an integrated, formalized and interdepartmental focus on science in government is desirable; and, the role of government science in the current innovation agenda, especially given the increased support for science in the higher education sector. Also not touched upon are the pending changes in Ottawa’s science advisory, structure which is anticipated during the implementation phase of the innovation agenda.

R$