Federal S&T Forum seeks input for greater integration of government science

Boost integrated S&T from 10% to 25%

Federal scientists across government are being encouraged to integrate their science and technology activities with each other and with players in other sectors by focusing on niches that draw on Canada-wide expertise. More than 350 representatives of science-based departments and agencies (SBDAs) gathered in Gatineau PQ earlier this month to discuss the theme of Moving from Collaboration to Integration and contribute ideas for removing barriers and changing practices that limit federal S&T from fully participating in a national system of innovation.

The Forum took place amidst a period of considerable uncertainty for federal S&T. The impact on S&T of the government’s intention to reallocate $12 billion in spending over the next five years is not well understood. And the dilapidated state of as much as half of federal S&T infrastructure makes it difficult for federal scientists to collaborate with others.

Ideas for how federal S&T should best evolve were delivered by several key players, including National Science Advisor Dr Arthur Carty and Dr Tom Brzustowski, president of Science and Engineering Research Canada (NSERC). Both acknowledged that current regulations and funding mechanisms were highly restrictive and proposed changes to end the exclusion of SBDAs from integrating their activities with other sectors.

Carty — whose mandate includes providing advice on reinvigorating federal S&T — called for the creation of a vision and long-term plan for federal S&T. He contends that it must include several key components, including more efficient use of equipment and infrastructure; stronger relationships and attraction of new research talent; a closer relationship between federal science and government policy and decision making; increased creativity and diversity in the S&T workforce; and, sharing of costs.

Carty pointed to the US National Nanotechnology Initiative as a particular effective means of integrating S&T across departments, agencies and sectors.

“This is a model we should seriously consider as we put together a national nano-technology initiative for Canada,” he said. “We need leadership and vision to succeed in effective integration. The entire S&T community must be engaged … Many problems are beyond the capacity of any single agency to deal with.”

Brzustowski was even more specific in outlining his vision for national S&T — an integrated system of Canadian, publicly funded research. He said Canada should be able to assemble integrated teams of federal and university researchers “wherever it makes scientific sense” and subject their work to international peer review.

“National competence in the public good is the major issue,” said Brzustowski. “The framework within government must be changed to allow (access to funding currently available to university researchers).”

Several speakers, including Dr Alan Winter, deputy chair of the Council of Science and Technology Advisors, pointed to the Financial Administration Act (FAA) and its interpretation as a major barrier to integration and cross-sectoral collaboration.

An interesting addition to the Forum was provided by Bill St Arnaud, senior director, advanced networks at CANARIE. St Arnaud described how the next generation of high-speed networking for the research community will be web-based. A potent example is the proposed remote access and control of beam lines at the Canadian Light Source, offering huge potential for collaboration, integration and multi-disciplinary interaction. (www.canarie.ca/canet4/library/ recent_presentations.html).

LIVING IN A POST-FINE WORLD

The Federal Science and Technology Forum is the first major gathering of its type in two years and the first since a memorandum to Cabinet for the proposed Federal Innovation Networks of Excellence (FINE) initiative was rejected *R$, June 23/03).

“Once we got over licking our wounds of not getting FINE through, we put the integration initiative together through the formation of the ADM Science and Technology Integration Board. It’s purpose was to take what was in FINE and put it in a slightly different context so we wouldn’t lose all those good ideas,” says Dr John Leggat, CEO of Defence R&D Canada and S&T ADM at the Department of National Defence. “The integration board recognized that the problem we had with FINE … was that we had a process but we didn’t have the need. What are you going to do to apply this, and how are you going to take a new way of moving federal science forward in a way which is going to have some impact in terms of the mission orientation that the federal departments and agencies have?”

The Integration Board has identified nine areas of federal S&T with a high potential for integration, including climate change and ocean management. The objective is to organize them along the lines of the CBRN Research & Technology Initiative (CRTI), —the only government program organized according to the principles of FINE.

Leggat welcomes NSA’s office to the federal policy framework and ongoing work to clarify the role of science in government. He notes that the ADM S&T Integration Board is providing administrative support to the NSA, complementing Carty’s work with both the science ADMs and DMs.

“It’s still early days for NSA. It’s going to take a while for this to gel. From the point-of-view of actually carving out a niche in the S&T framework ... it might take a few years before we see something concrete and having sustained impact.”

Leading up to the Forum, considerable work was conducted to determine what elements of federal S&T are appropriate for integration. An inventory of federal S&T undertaken by Treasury Board last year identified approximately $450 million in activity — about 10% of the total — that could properly be described as collaborative and horizontally integrated. The Integration Board wants to see that increased to $1-1.2 billion or about 25% of the total.

In addition to regulatory barriers that constrain federal S&T, aging infrastructure is arguably an even more acute problem as a recent inventory revealed.

“There are some really pressing needs. At least half of our infrastructure pretty much needs to be replaced,” says Leggat. “In our own organization (DRDC), for example, some labs are in good shape but one lab in particular — Valcartier — needs to be replaced. Infrastructure really needs to be a priority which is outside the program integration we’re talking about at this Forum.”

In fact, the vast majority of federal S&T has little potential for integration with other organizations and sectors, as it is devoted to carrying out specific departmental and agency mandates.

FMI: www.sciencetech.gc.ca.

R$