S&T Review of 1994 provides valuable benchmark for innovation strategy

The highly anticipated federal Science & Technology Review of 1994 descended into a public relations exercise for delivering election promises and minimizing the S&T cutbacks associated with Program Review, according to a new content analysis of more than 500 original documents. The study comes as the government is once again consulting widely on S&T, but within the broader framework of innovation.

While the Review has been largely discounted in the ensuing years, the report contends that the process of consulting the various stakeholders across the country signif- icantly improved communication and collaboration between scientists and helped strengthen ties between universities and industry.

The report was prepared by Aaron Cruickshank and Adam Holbrook of Simon Fraser Univ’s Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology and released in August. Entitled The 1994 Federal Science and Technology Review, it is based on government reports, transcripts and letters sent to the government as part of its consultations.

The report serves as a benchmark for the current consultation process on innovation, but Holbrook says the two should be compared with caution.

“The S&T Review placed little emphasis on human capital and in 1994 the concept of innovation was not well understood. People were still relying on simple inputs and outputs and no one took the leap of faith that you can be innovative without doing R&D,” he says. “Innovation includes human capital and that is where government can do a lot of things. There are more levers to pull.”

While the 1994 review had a promising start, the report says the exercise went off the rails as bureaucrats and politicians began to meddle in the process.

“Key officials in the government set the agenda for the national conference and handpicked the participants to ensure the mix of views that they wanted,” states the report. “Any changes in policy that appeared to emerge from the S&T Review were actually justification for cuts forced by Program Review.”

Holbrook contends that before the consultation process was complete the S&T Review secretariat “went away and re-wrote the questions between the last regional meeting and the national conference. Jon Gerrard (then secretary of state for science, research and development) was gradually dealt out of the process and the national summit sanitized the various issues”.

Despite its shortcomings, Holbrook says the 1994 exercise was far more open than the innovation agenda now winding its way towards an early November national summit in Toronto.

“I am underwhelmed by the current process. In 1994, there was a greater challenge to stakeholders to provide advice. It had a good rollout process. Now the answers are being provided,” says Holbrook. “In 1994, they called it a challenge and made a blanket invitation. This time, everything is by invitation. I feel the policy has already been written and will be brought out piece by piece.”

Many will argue that the 1994 review could have been more successful had the government not complicated the process by implementing Program Review at the same time. Federal laboratories that put such faith in the process were understandably disappointed when the end product was cuts rather than badly needed resources. And without a coherent follow-on process, the task of developing a strategy was left to the bureaucrats who delivered two years later with Science & Technology for the New Century.

Holbrook says a similar situation could confront the innovation agenda. “The government has been sandbagged by the issue of industry R&D expenditures. Instead of moving ahead, we’re moving backwards according to Statistics Canada,” he says.

R$