Latest proposal to boost federal science capacity suffers setback

Opinions differ on the outcome

The federal government’s best chance for transforming the way it performs science and technology (S&T) appears to have been cut off at the knees just weeks before the submission of a memorandum to Cabinet (MC) seeking approval of new funds. The abrupt decision to withdraw the proposal for the Federal Innovation Networks of Excellence (FINE) program has left many members of the S&T community mystified, including those responsible for crafting the initiative over the past year. Whether FINE proceeds or is replaced by another, more radical proposal, is a matter of ongoing debate.

The decision to place FINE in bureaucratic and political limbo is being interpreted by some as major setback, although that opinion is by no means unanimous. The federal S&T community has placed high hopes on the program’s success and the withdrawal of the MC comes weeks before the National S&T Summit in Toronto — an event the FINE proposal was supposed to feed into.

“It’s on hold. A more fundamental change is being considered,” says Dr William Doubleday, a visiting ADM at Environment Canada and a key architect of FINE. “Samy Watson (DM at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada - AAFC) now has the lead to propose this fundamental change… I don’t fully understand what it means and I don’t know the implications at this point.”

FINE was conceived as vehicle to enhance and expand the capacity of federal S&T by bringing federal scientists together with their counterparts in other sectors to tackle emerging issues such as water and security. As such, its backers were seeking funding above and beyond the regular A-base funding allocated to the science-based departments and agencies (SBDAs). Planning for the initiative began in mid-2001 and was cited generically in Achieving Excellence, Industry Canada’s main innovation strategy document (see box).

There was even a FINE pilot of sorts — the $170-million Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear Research and Technology Initiative (CRTI) to counter terrorist threats.

But despite the best of intentions, FINE has not secured unanimous support from federal science DMs. That apparently led to a split which resulted in the decision last month to withdraw the MC for the proposal.

The subtle seeds of discontent over FINE were sown in the recent Speech from the Throne and at a major Federal S&T Forum held in Aylmer PQ last month. The Throne Speech made mention of federal science, but it was coupled by a reference to working with existing resources, casting doubt on the government’s commitment to spending more money on federal S&T.

WATSON PROPOSING RADICAL CULTURE CHANGE

At the Federal S&T Forum, presentations by two DMs reinforced that message. The speech by Watson went the furthest, suggesting that a far more fundamental change in direction was required. While acknowledging the FINE and other networking initiatives were positive developments, he stated that major cultural and organizational changes were essential if government science was to remain relevant.

“We have a responsibility to make the fundamental decisions … there would be tremendous amount of change and periods of incredible chaos right on the edge of anarchy. And the question is, do we really want to do that? Or do we want to wait for gradualism to take its natural course until we are hit with the fact that we are not really getting that relevant,” said Watson. “We shouldn’t lull ourselves into thinking that because we have FINE and we have some networks, which are good things, that that’s enough. It’s not enough. We have to decide whether we actually really believe this stuff or have we just learned how to say it.”

Watson is a veteran senior bureaucrat who was appointed DM at AAFC after holding various senior positions at Finance Canada and the Privy Council Office. Sources say Watson may have received backing for a new initiative from Alex Himelfarb, clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to Cabinet.

Some contend that Watson’s proposal is far more radical than FINE in terms of its impact on federal S&T activity and operations, but uncertainty remains until more detail is provided on what changes Watson is actually proposing. (Watson was not available for an interview for this article).

Dr John Leggat, ADM for S&T at National Defence and a proponent of FINE, is also unclear on the significance and consequences of the withdrawal of the FINE MC. “There is not a lot of clarity on what the next steps are. It’s being muddied by priorities at Industry Canada and how it fits into the Innovation Strategy,” he says, adding that CRTI is progressing and addressing the “vast majority” of investment priorities. “The thing that’s important with CRTI is that it’s new money, which is much easier to manage than existing money. The question is, how do you stimulate activity in a resource-neutral environment.”

FINE NOT DEAD YET

Not everyone is convinced that the FINE initiative is moribund. Dr Robert Slater has led the charge for its adoption along with Doubleday, and says he knows of nothing that suggests the proposal has been derailed. Although he won’t comment on the MC’s withdrawal, he characterizes Doubleday’s contention that FINE is on hold as “speculative” and asserts that work on its governance structure is continuing apace.

“When you put a lot of effort into something, you can read signals one way or the other. We’re chugging along,” says Slater. “When the constellations line up, we will take it forward to Cabinet for consideration. There is also the Finance issue to worry about. You have to find your spot in the heavens. There are lots of check points, lots of opportunities to derail and lots of mixed signals depending on what lens you look through.”

Slater says it’s imperative that the process for proposing a new program is respected. He adds that it’s up to the ministers to determine whether FINE meets their expectations, as outlined in the Innovation Strategy and the Throne Speech. But Slater says it’s still his intention to push forward for consideration in the next Budget.

“There’s need for radical and fundamental change in some departments versus continuous improvement and realignment in others. Where FINE fits on the spectrum depends on who you talk to,” he says. “The date that counts is April first of next year. If we’re successful, we’ll have cash in hand to do something.”

R$