Provinces that develop and deploy explicit science policies benefit from greater coordination, alignment and clarity of their science-based activities, which in turn help leverage federal support. Other than Quebec and the territories which have developed explicit science policies, those of Canada’s other subnational governments are implicit in nature and often conflate science and innovation resulting in less than optimum outcomes, according to a new report from the Council of Canadian Academies.

Science Policy: Considerations for Subnational Governments was commissioned by the Government of Alberta and resulted in a two-day workshop last November of a 16-member steering committee led by Dr Joy Johnson, VP research at Simon Fraser Univ.

Provinces without explicit science policies should consider the current window of opportunity at the federal level, the steering committee notes. The Liberal administration has placed a high priority on the importance of science and evidence-informed decision making, augmented by an evolving Innovation and Skills Plan and the recently released report on federal support for fundamental science, known as the Naylor report.

“If they (Liberal government) go forward it will be a very different landscape and in a positive way,” says steering committee panel member Janet Halliwell, president of JE Halliwell Associates Inc. “It will provide a more deliberate, explicit approach to the way science is done both for external and internal government science.”

Fellow steering committee member Paul Dufour agrees that the current environment offers for both levels of government potential to benefit following a federal Budget that stresses economic diversification and the Naylor report.

“This is a great platform to send messages elsewhere in Canada … It’s a great opportunity for the federal government to use this report to better work with the provinces in a strategic, pan-Canadian way,” says Dufour, an adjunct professor at the Univ of Ottawa. “The Liberal administration has opened a window to strengthen dialogue with the provinces as they design a response to the Naylor report and launch the Innovation Agenda.”

A scan of subnational explicit science policies in Canada, the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere show that thriving science systems receive support in five core areas leading to:

• deep and growing pools of scientific expertise;
• sustainably supported research infrastructure;
• research funding programs that meet multiple objectives;
• well-developed channels for public outreach and engagement; and,
• the ability to mobilize research effectively to develop new technologies and inform public policy.

Source: Science Policy: Considerations for Subnational Governments, Council of Canadian Academies

In Canada, the vast majority of provincial science policies are implicit, often leading to uncoordinated and often overlapping activities, frequent shifts in policy structures and weak leverage of federal funding.

Alberta is a prime example of the downside of failing to develop an explicit policy. Although it funds a larger share of R&D than other provinces, while accounting for 12% of Canada’s population and 19% of its GDP, its share of federal granting council and Canada Foundation for Innovation funding ranged between 6% and 10%, according to data from Alberta Economic Development and Trade.

“A science policy designed to complement and build on federal investments could further improve federal funding levels in the province,” states the report.

Workshop participants identified a lack of connections among stakeholders as a key weakness in the province: “Industry’s funding of university-based R&D is limited, and industry in turn receives very little outside funding for its own R&D.”

Although exploring the reasons for the disconnect between funding levels and leverage of federal support was beyond the mandate of the steering committee, Halliwell says the report recognizes that the constant flux of provincial science policy structures “has been detrimental to long-term planning and sustained support”.

An example of the constantly changing nature of Alberta’s science institutions is its oil and gas sector. In the mid-1970s, the province created the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority. AOSTRA generated significant research results for two decades, at which time it was folded into the Department of Energy. It was replaced in 2000 by the Alberta Energy Research Institute, and then 10 years later, was incorporated into Alberta Innovates — Energy and Environment Solutions. In 2016, the four distinct branches of Alberta Innovates were merged into a single entity.

“Alberta can learn from its failures and recognize that science funding is an investment, not an expenditure,” says Dufour. “Local assets can be used to leverage federal assets but you need to approach it strategically.”

Quebec Example

In stark contrast to Alberta is the well-established science policy environment of Quebec. In the 1960s when its scientific performance was weak, the province launched a series of initiatives through to the early 1980s, building on federal investments and resulting in a “dramatic transformation of the research environment”, notes the report. Quebec is home to 23% of university faculty and accounted for 28% of federal granting council awards between 2000 and 2010. In 2010, the R&D employment in the province was higher as a share of workforce than any other province.

It’s also notable that Quebec appointed a chief scientist to head the three provincial granting councils, raise the profile of science and science advice, enhance science coordination within government and liaise internationally.

“Quebec has the deepest and largest tradition in its approach to science and it has paid off superbly,” says Halliwell. “They’ve been doing this since the 1970s. They leverage federal funds very well and are deliberate and strategic in what they’ve done. They pioneered multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research in Canada.”

Dufour says the time is ripe for Alberta to get its science policy act together — to leverage not only its deep research expertise in oil and gas and natural resources but research underpinning areas such as nanotechnology, health and climate change.

“Alberta has this fantastic knowledge sitting in its institutions. Use it and then leverage nationally and internationally, which will lead to new findings and breakthroughs” he says.

The CCA reports also stresses the importance of engagement as a way to achieve gains from an explicit science policy. Research has shown that the more the public is aware of and understands the science it supports, the more supportive it tends to be. Within government, engagement across ministries can help to eliminate silos, reduce overlap and develop broad science-based initiatives. Halliwell says the Naylor report’s recommendation to hold a First Ministers’ Conference on Research Excellence in 2017 is an excellent place to begin working strategically and collaboratively for the benefit of the provinces and the country as a whole.

“If the Naylor recommendation for federal-provincial interaction goes forward, we will have a forum for dialogue and discussions that will be very powerful,” she says. “A lot of issues need to be brought to the table.”

R$