Science and research communities concerned about possible diminished role for science in new Liberal cabinet

By Mark Henderson

The Liberal government’s elimination of the Minister of Science from its new Cabinet has set off intense speculation over how — or whether — the party’s public commitments on science, research and innovation will continue into a second term. Struck following the October 21 election that produced a minority Liberal government, the new Cabinet saw the elimination of the Minister of Science and Dr. Kirsty Duncan shifted to the position of Deputy Government House Leader.

Stakeholders in the science and research communities concerned by this change have characterized it as a step backwards, especially after the previous Liberal government’s emphasis on evidence-based decision-making, as well as openness and transparency in science and research. In her four years as science minister, Duncan was highly visible in the science and research communities, championing the importance of supporting these endeavours as well as promoting equity, diversity and inclusion throughout government departments and agencies.

“It’s not encouraging to be honest. It really doesn’t send a good signal that we’re going to have sunnier days in science. The science community as a whole may offer a bit more pushback,” says Paul Dufour, a veteran S&T authority, adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa, and principal of PaulicyWorks. “A lot of people expected that the science portfolio would in some form survive. Clearly that’s not the case …. It’s not a priority item, obviously.”

Duncan was also responsible for Canada’s Fundamental Science Review, aka the Naylor Report, which led to the science and research investments of the 2018 Budget. Yet many of its recommendations have not been executed, leading critics to question her ability to push initiatives through Cabinet.

“When you don’t have a full ministry like we used to have in the 70s, it’s a hard sell,” says Dufour. “Other departments protect their own agenda, and they also have research and science mandates that they have to deliver on. Trying to coordinate all that tends to be difficult at times.”

Unanswered questions

As part of the naming of a new Cabinet, the government changed the name of the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to Innovation, Science and Industry (ISI) under the guidance of MP Navdeep Bains. Responsibility for the six regional development agencies has been transferred to Mélanie Joly, who heads up the newly created Ministry of Economic Development. Joly also has responsibility for official languages.

With the demise of the science minister’s position, the complete science, research and innovation portfolio will reside within ISI — a department with diverse responsibilities ranging from science, technology and innovation (STI) to telecommunications regulations and bankruptcies and insolvencies.

“Bains is capable, there’s no question about that," says Dufour. "But bringing the science and research agenda into that portfolio in a meaningful way is going to be the test. We’ll be watching that very carefully."

Dufour suggests that lack of a roadmap and a national STI strategy, as well as the space opened up by Duncan’s departure, could be addressed by the forthcoming Council on Science and Innovation. The CSI will be an independent advisory body mandated to provide ministers with expert advice on policy issues related to science and innovation. Currently being populated with a chairperson and 11 members, the CSI will provide advice on the full spectrum of disciplines — natural sciences and engineering, life and health sciences, and social sciences and humanities — and cover the breadth of activity from fundamental research through applied research to successful commercialization of product and process innovations. A review of applications to the CSI has been underway since late January, but there has been no official announcement to date.

"One could argue that one of [the CSI's] jobs would be to help the government design an agenda and strategy around STI in conjunction with the Chief Science Advisor and the chief scientists that are now permeating government departments and agencies," says Dufour. "One could make the case that the CSI would become the fallback option for the government designing a science agenda.”

Stabilizing the science advice ecosystem

The government may also increase its reliance on the chief science advisor, Dr. Mona Nemer, and the network of departmental and agency chief scientists now taking shape. Yet Nemer holds a non-elected position and plays a purely advisory role, as opposed to Duncan, who sat at the Cabinet table and — lacking a dedicated ministry or spending authority — used moral suasion to convince others in Cabinet to support her programs and priorities.

“I assume [Nemer] will provide advice to Bains and, with no science minister, the government may have to rely much more heavily on her and her office, as well as the network of science advisors in the departments and agencies, which is expanding. I’m not saying this is going to happen, but I could see that as being a potential option for the government.”

For her part, Nemer has worked to pull together a science advice ecosystem that endures regardless of the government in power. In a speech at the recent Canadian Science Policy Conference, she emphasized the importance of a stable science advice structure.

“I’m more committed than ever to making sure that this office is going to be a fixture in the Canadian landscape,” said Nemer. “My position is not partisan and should remain this way. Governments, whether majority or minority, need to enact legislation and make decisions … grounded in science and evidence.”

Amongst the speculation is the possibility that the prioritization of science and research may be decreased in the new government. a prospect that would not bode well for relations with the scientific and research communities. Since the dark days of the Harper government, replete with budget cuts to research and the muzzling of government scientists, the science and research communities have mobilized with new organizations, such as Evidence for Democracy, the Canadian Science Policy Centre and the Montreal-based Science and Policy Exchange. These have emerged to advocate for strong, open and transparent science and research policies and programs.

“[The community] has now woken up that they have to understand politics more and make their case more effectively in the political system,” says Dufour. “The research community has a responsibility here to get up, get out and start making the case for why the science ministry should be back in play and hold this administration’s feet to the fire.”

R$