Funding of federal S&T faces uncertain future as community maps out strategy

The federal S&T community is primed for new challenges but it may have to face them without significant new resources. The uneasy balance between opportunity and fiscal constraint provided a potent undercurrent to a recent two-day federal S&T forum near Ottawa earlier this month. Buoyed by the Throne Speech delivered just days prior to the event, the atmosphere was decidedly optimistic as delegates worked to develop a new vision for the future of federal S&T.

The event was organized by the Federal Science and Technology Community Secretariat in conjunction with the Canadian Centre for Management Development. It attracted more than 350 scientists, policy makers and youth, making it arguably the largest gathering of federal scientists and policy makers in history. One spokesperson said that the overwhelming interest in the event meant that an equal number had to be turned away.

But statements made by a key official near the end of the second day may have tempered the enthusiasm of those seeking to engineer a transformation in the way the government conducts S&T and interacts with others. Health Canada DM Ian Green told the audience that new funding may not be forthcoming and suggested that the community should align its thinking for transforming federal S&T without additional financial resources.

After reporting on what he considered to be the most pertinent issues raised at the forum, Green delivered a note of caution. He advised the audience that “there has to be openness to reallocation, adding that he was “not optimistic that more money is on the way. We have to change with existing funding.”

While some delegates expressed concern at Green’s comments, at least one senior official said the remarks don’t necessarily send the wrong message.

“Ian was there to report on what he heard and he did a masterful job,” says Dr Robert Slater, senior ADM at Environment Canada. “There is no question that the federal government, as an institution, is going to have to find the talent to realign resources … We have to be ready to demonstrate that we can realign our efforts in accordance with current government priorities as a prerequisite to asking for additional resources. The days of 100% new dollars are probably gone.”

In recent months, federal policy makers have been working to draft a new S&T policy that seeks to stimulate integration amongst federal departments and agencies and increase collaboration with industry, universities and colleges. The forum’s main objective was to build on that work to develop a long-term agenda for federal S&T, by evaluating work-to-date, pinpointing key issues and discussing potential challenges and opportunities.

Opinion was varied on which approach was better suited to the task, with many delegates calling for a closer interaction between scientists and policy makers in shaping the new S&T vision. Some debated the merits of developing a combination of top-down and bottom-up approach to setting S&T priorities while others suggested that the federal S&T community should lead the way in setting national policy, while others argued that a combination of top-down and bottom-up approach to priority setting had to be developed.

Another perspective was offered by Dr Lorne Heslop, science policy advisor with the science policy and planning division of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. He argued that Canadians were not interested S&T policy, but the benefits it will bring, leading to the logical question.

“What is the Canadian vision and what is the S&T vision to deliver to that?” He added that this approach should be foremost in policy makers minds when setting priorities and that distinction must be made between federal and national policy agendas.

Not surprisingly, money was repeatedly raised as an issue throughout the forum, although it never threatened to become the dominant focus of debate. As National Research Council president Dr Arthur Carty noted, the event was marked by very creative discussions and “very little bitching and whining”. Carty emphasized the need for a “single Cabinet vision” for federal S&T but threw cold water on the concept of a single federal S&T agency, remarking that the only examples of such a system were China and the Soviet Union.

Slater also says he was impressed by the level of enthusiasm generated by the discussions and foresees follow-on meetings to bring the vision down to earth by focusing on practical applications of the vision.

“The energy in the room was high and people were in a constructive frame of mind. It was a good verification exercise of where the mood of people is. It’s quite palpably different from where it was five years ago and immeasurably different from 10 or 20 years ago,” he says. “But we have to prove ourselves. We’ll see if this forum was a watershed event in two years time. The proof is in the pudding.”

The forum ended with a closing speech by Dr Rey Pagtakhan, secretary of state for science, research and development. In an address geared to reinforcing the dominant themes of the ongoing innovation agenda (and nearly devoid of any references to federal S&T), Pagtakhan acknowledged that finding adequate resources remains a central challenge as Canada seeks to improve its innovative capacity. He said that he would “advance the subject of increasing resources for science and research” with Industry minister Alan Rock and other colleagues in the weeks ahead.

“It is good to dream for the good of S&T. If we do not deliver the dollars, the state of dreams will remain only a dream forever, and therefore will be a wasted dream,” he said.

R$