🚀 go-pugleaf

From: JAB@DSI.BC.CA (Judy Bishop)
Newsgroups: bc.general, can.general, can.ai, sci.research
Subject: Opinion on federal Science + Technology spending 
Organization: Dynapro Systems Inc.
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.90.2

Most Canadians agree that national investment in Science + 
Technology is essential to building a better society, and to maintaining 
our standard of living.  The question, of course, is not whether we 
should spend more money:  Canada is broke and deeply in debt.  Yet, as
a society, we acknowledge that we must invest in the wealth creation
engine of technology.    How then, do we best reallocate precious 
Science + Technology funds, rather than spend more? 

On September 1 and 2, the first of five regional Science + Technology 
(S+T) reviews was held in Richmond.  This cross-country review is part
 of the Government of Canada�s consultation with Canadians to help the
m formulate new national science + technology policy.   From Vancouver, 
the conferences moved to Saskatoon, St.John�s, Montreal then on to
Toronto by the end of September, with recommendations for increasing
S+T economic impact going to the Ottawa-based National Roundtable 
by the end of this month (October).  

These review meetings may well be the most comprehensive review of 
Canadian S+T spending ever undertaken.  Over a dozen major
provincial and national groups collaborated in these meetings, 
representing industry, academia, government, and private business.

The session was chaired by Karl Brackhaus, CEO of Dynapro Systems,
with welcoming address by Industry Canada Minister John Manley, and 
comments by Hugh Wynne-Edwards, CEO of BC Research Inc.   Jon 
Gerrard, Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development, 
described his Summer spent listening to over 1,700 presenters in 24 
intensive S+T community workshops held across the country.  About 
100 delegates from a broad base of stakeholder groups attended the 
Vancouver review meeting, with strong representation from academic
circles.  

A few numbers will help clarify the reasons for these national review 
meetings.  On behalf of the Canadian people, our federal government
invests about $7 billion annually in science and technology - more than 
11% of national program funding.   Of this $7 billion, the distribution is
roughly as follows: $1 billion for tax incentives and concessions, such 
as Investment Tax Credits (ITC�s); $3 billion for intramural and 
internal spending, including government labs (such as National 
Research Council,  Communications Research Council); $3 billion for 
university-related funding.  Of intense interest to the review meetings
was the large allocation of S+T funds to internal government bodies, 
deemed �intramural� spending.  In fact, nineteen federal organizations
receive a total of $5.34 billion, or 89%, of federal S+T money.  Fully 
one-third of Canada�s national R+D effort is federally-financed.  

While the size of Canada�s budget measures up when compared to other
G-7 countries, we fall short in providing return on our $7 billion 
investment.  Canada�s constant emphasis on fundamental, basic
research encourages bureaucratic and academic elitism in the 
scientific community, and does little to reward consultation with 
industry, or technology transfer to business and the marketplace.  In 
many government labs, a form of professional tenure entrenches basic
researchers in theoretical work that does not link itself to the broader
context of industry.  

Turning our gaze to applied S+T and technology transfer from 
universities and government labs, we see a mixed track record.  While 
our universities create knowledge, we focus little energy on
transferring that knowledge to industry, which in turn creates wealth
and employment by delivering products and services to meet market 
needs.  Whether via consortia or joint ventures, it is the business 
environment that is best equipped to create the mechanisms to retain
the benefits of Canadian S+T activity, especially in strategic 
applications.  

Funding of government labs is being reviewed to make them more 
accountable and reorganize them as partnerships with business.   
Proposals for change that are gaining favor include the privatization of
government labs (as with BC Research in 1993), the use of hard 
contractual relationships, term-based funding, and rationalizing 
between organizations to eliminate duplicated work.  To maximize 
return on our federal investment, we must also ensure that the Boards
of government labs are populated in equal measure by private industry
and academics, thus reducing the motivation to retain the status-quo.
What gets rewarded gets done......

Canada simply cannot afford the luxury of non-industry linked science
and technology spending.  Shifting our focus to market-driven research
will not harm us in scientific circles: Canada creates about 2% of the
world�s basic scientific knowledge.

One of the best examples of effective government S+T spending is the
Investment Tax Credit (ITC) program.  ITC�s successfully encourage 
private sector investment in technology R+D, with many reports of the
program�s critical role in growing companies.  The ITC program would 
greatly improve governmental return in S+T investment by increasing
the current $200,000 limit imposed on Canadian technology companies.   Yet, despite their effectiveness, certain highly-placed bureaucrats are apparently arguing that R+D tax credits should be where funding is cut, rather than in intramural, or internal, 
government spending.

Suggestions for another key program, the Industrial Research 
Assistance Program (IRAP), include broadening its scope to emphasize
on export-oriented products ideas, as well as redirecting significant 
amounts of intramural government funding to strengthen the IRAP 
program.  

In February 1994, the National Advisory Board on Science + Technology
(NABST) presented their final report to Prime Minister Jean Chretien. 
The NABST committee on Federal S+T priorities, headed by ASEA Brown 
Boveri CEO Peter Janson, sent three main messages in the report, 
entitled �Spending Smarter� :

	1. Government must manage its $7 billion annual investment
in S+T as a strategic asset, with federally-funded organizations held 
accountable for their work.  The goals are for government to maximize
the return on S+T investment, focus on applied industry-targeted 
research rather than basic research, and bridge the technology 
transfer and commercialization gap. 

	2. To achieve a vastly more effective investment in S+T, 
government efforts must focus on developing a knowledge-hungry 
society, as well as market-driven technology development.  This 
includes an emphasis on the value of S+T at the community level, 
development of a culture of innovation in Canada, and the support of
small businesses commercializing technology.  This also means an 
attitude shift towards S+T, dispensing of the �nerdy� view of science, 
and encouraging bright young women to participate too.

	3. Government must quickly establish an effective priority-
setting system in federal departments and agencies, possibly patterned
after those used in Australia, New Zealand and the UK.  The goals are
more effective returns, with less insular decision-making and more 
emphasis on competitiveness via co-operation with business and 
industry.  

Why should British Columbia be concerned about federal S+T practices
and spending?  To some extent, it is to address inequities and level the
playing field.    For example, the Globe + Mail newspaper recently 
reported that BC and Quebec had Canada�s most active high-tech 
communities.  And yet, Statistics Canada studies clearly show that BC
receives less than its proportional share of R&D funding, while Quebec
receives far more than its proportional share.  According to Morley
Lipsett of Simon Fraser University�s Centre for Policy Research on S+T,
�BC has more innovative companies per capita than any other province.   But our low use of government tax incentive programs effectively means that BC is a net exporter to other provinces.�  From a BC perspective, the best way means to retain the benefits
 of our national S+T investment is for government to invest in infrastructure that will help industry thrive in a tough, globally-competitive environment.  
 

DO IT NOW!   Input from industry CAN make a real difference to S+T
spending priorities.  Please join over 300 previous submitters, and 
e-mail the Science + Technology Review Secretariat at -
		S&TReview@ISTC.CA
Or, at Minister John Manley�s request, e-mail him at -
		Manley.John@ISTC.CA
or snail mail to Hon. John Manley, Minister for Industry Canada, 
11E - 235 Queen Street, Ottawa, Ont.  K1A 0H5.   


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Bishop is on the Board of Directors of the BC Technology Industry 
Association (TIA), and is the Publisher of their MONITOR magazine,
where this article first appeared in the October 1994 issue.   

[While she is also Director of Communications at Dynapro Systems Inc., 
the opinions presented herein are hers, and not necessarily those of 
Dynapro].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------