I half-thought we might get an announcement about Canada’s new science adviser/advisor/officer during the 2016 Science Odyssey (formerly Canada’s National Science and Technology Week) being held from May 6–15, 2016. Especially in light of Science Minister Kirsty Duncan’s May 6, 2016 article “Duncan: New federal science adviser will be key to evidence-based policy” for the Ottawa Citizen,
The creation of a permanent Chief Science Officer demonstrates our government’s commitment to making sure science finds its rightful place at the federal table. In the six months since arriving in office, I have consulted extensively – both domestically and internationally – on this position. I have examined how similar positions, often called a chief science adviser, work in other countries such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, the United States and Israel. My survey of international models will help create a position that is modern and yet tailor-made to suit Canada.
To-date, I have received valuable input from more than 80 experts, stakeholders and parliamentary colleagues from across the political spectrum. They have provided views such as the importance of recruiting someone who can provide independent, transparent and non-partisan scientific advice to the prime minister and our government. Our consultations have also underscored the importance of building relationships between a Chief Science Officer and the research community that allow for the best scientific expertise to be part of decision-making at the highest levels of government.
Our stakeholders also emphasized the importance of appointing someone who would have access to and an open dialogue with federal scientists, along with other scientists across Canada and abroad.
And when I speak of scientists here, I mean all scientists. As Stephen J. Toope, president of the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, wrote in the Citizen Friday [May 6, 2016], our lead scientist would be welcome to gather the best evidence from all scientific disciplines: the natural and applied sciences, engineering, health sciences and the social sciences and humanities. The officer would do so without the influence of political agendas. And with ease in both official languages.
I have learned from my consultations that in order for Canada to enhance its science advisory system and give this new position permanence, it is important to properly define and take the time necessary to recruit someone who has a deep respect for Canada’s scientists and the role of science in society. So far, I am encouraged that members of our stakeholder community and parliamentarians understand the need for a credible process to appoint a worthy individual who will serve our prime minister, our government, our citizens and scientists.
Tim Lougheed in a Feb. 29, 2016 article for the Canadian Science Policy Centre passed on a few thoughts from Sir Peter Gluckman, Chief Science Advisor (CSO; either advisor or adviser seems to be correct) to New Zealand’s Prime Minister,
So, the Canadian science adviser is supposed to have an impact on policy,
“There can be expectations that when you’re fighting for a science advisor you’re fighting for an in-house lobbyist for the science community,” he cautions. “But of course you’re not: you’re fighting for an in-house lobbyist for the use of science by government. There’s a really important difference.”
Gluckman was honoured this February [2016] in Washington [DC] at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which gave him its 2015 Award for Science Diplomacy. He understands the need for diplomacy in any kind of CSO undertaking, especially whenever he has found himself wedged in between a political leadership seeking objective consultation and a research community disappointed with their share of government funding.
“When the roles of science advisors get conflated, they tend to get more politicized,” he explains. “What we try to do is to show that science can be an apolitical powerful input into better decision-making by governments.”
Canada [has] already long taken advantage of this powerful input through the Science Technology and Innovation Council, created in 2007, and before that the Council of Science and Technology Advisors, which dates back to 1996. However, the deliberations of these bodies largely took place behind closed doors and neither was ever intended to maintain the public accountability and profile of a CSO, who could easily become a lightning rod in exceptional circumstances such as those that highlighted Koop’s career.
“They’re going to have to earn the trust of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet,” says University of Ottawa Biology Professor Rees Kassen. “They have to show value and at the same time they have to show value to the country.”
Kassen, a longtime advocate of bridge-building between government and the research community, underscores that “country” refers to everyone, not just those two parties. In order to succeed, the CSO must be seen to benefit Canada as a whole.
“I would like to see the role of science advisor not rely solely on the heroic capabilities of one person,” he adds. “We have a very rich ecosystem of scientific knowledge creation, of scientific activity, of scientific translation — and potentially, of scientific advice.”
Kassen, a longtime advocate of bridge-building between government and the research community, underscores that “country” refers to everyone, not just those two parties. In order to succeed, the CSO must be seen to benefit Canada as a whole.
“I would like to see the role of science advisor not rely solely on the heroic capabilities of one person,” he adds. “We have a very rich ecosystem of scientific knowledge creation, of scientific activity, of scientific translation — and potentially, of scientific advice.”
Gluckman — who himself coordinates the work of a variety of other science advisors located in other parts of the New Zealand government, and collaborates closely with the Royal Society of New Zealand (the National Academy)— absolutely agrees. Moreover, he concludes that the effectiveness of any CSO will depend on how far and wide their influence extends.
“That really determines how this role works,” he says. “Ultimately if this person doesn’t report across the whole of government, they can’t do the role I’m talking about.”
Of course, there are some assumptions being made as Paul Cairney *notes* in his March 10, 2016 article for the Guardian about science advice and its impact on policy and policymakers,
… these efforts will fail if scientists and other experts fail to understand how the policy process works. To do so requires us to reject two romantic notions: first, that policymakers will ever think like scientists; and second, that there is a clearly identifiable point of decision at which scientists can contribute evidence to make a demonstrable impact.
To better understand how policymakers think, we need a full account of “bounded rationality.” This phrase describes the fact that policymakers can only gather limited information before they make decisions quickly. They will have made a choice before you have a chance to say “more research is needed”! To do so, they use two short cuts: rational ways to gather quickly the best evidence on solutions to meet their goals; and irrational ways – including drawing on emotions and gut feeling – to identify problems even more quickly.
This highlights a potential flaw in academic strategies. The most common response to bounded rationality in scientific articles is to focus on the supply of evidence: to develop a hierarchy of evidence, which often privileges randomised control trials; to generate knowledge; and to present it in a form that is understandable to policymakers.
We need to pay more attention to the demand for evidence, taking more account of lurches of policymaker attention, often driven by quick and emotional decisions. For example, there is no point in taking the time to make evidence-based solutions easier to understand if policymakers are no longer interested. Successful advocates recognise the value of emotional appeals and simple stories to draw attention to a problem.
To identify when and how to contribute evidence, we need to understand the complicated environment in which policymaking takes place. There is no “policy cycle” in which to inject scientific evidence at the point of decision. Rather, the policy process is messy and often unpredictable. It is a complex system in which the same injection of evidence can have no effect, or a major effect.
The article offers more insight into the issues with science advice, evidence, and policymaking. Coincidentally Cairney was promoting a new book at the time (from Cairney’s article),
… his new book The Politics of Evidence Based Policymaking, which was launched this week by the Alliance for Useful Evidence. More details are available on his website.
All this speculation has been quite interesting and I look forward to an announcement at some point. For those who’d like more opinions about the matter, there’s the Canadian Science Policy Centre’s Chief Science Officer: Insights and Recommendations webpage, which, as of May 19, 2016, hosts seven opinion pieces including one from Ted Hsu, former Liberal Member of Parliament, one of the few to hold a science degree (in his case, physics).
*’notes’ added on May 19,2016 at 1412 PDT.
and onto the street! We work with Canada’s top research institutes to present a coast-to-coast open house and festival that is for everyone. With over 300 events across 30 cities and 1000’s of mind-blowing activities, Science Rendezvous is Canada’s largest celebration of the amazing feats of science and engineering happening right here at home.