Science is part of the knowledge economy and thus an important driver of Canadian prosperity. In Ottawa, a federal Deputy Minister Committee on Science and Technology is in place to consider some of the challenges that we face in ensuring that science supports our competitiveness. Claire Dansereau, chair of the committee and Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, spoke with editor-in-chief Toby Fyfe.
Governments aren’t really in the business of science and yet we have a number of departments and agencies that play a role in this area. What do you see as the role of science for government?
It is interesting you say that it is not a natural link for the government because I think it is essential. We do not do science for the sake of pure science on a broad range of discoveries, but science is an essential, absolutely fundamental, component on both the regulatory and policy sides. In the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for example, every decision we make on how much fish should be caught starts from a science base. We need the best information regarding biomass before we can determine how many fish should be caught in any given season in order to protect the species: that is on the policy side. On the regulatory side, every department that has a regulatory function with any impact on health or safety or fisheries or environmental health in particular, all of that starts from a science base. It is a very important part of the decision-making process in government.
I think of scientists working over beakers and stuff like that. Do you see that as feeding into the policy and regulatory processes?
The difference is that the scientist needs to do his or her work within the priorities of the government as opposed to necessarily saying I have a personal interest in researching “x” and going off and becoming an expert in that field. We need to make sure that the science our scientists do fits into either the regulatory front to help us make a better regulation or into the policy front to help us make policy decisions. Now, there is some flexibility in this, particularly if we know that there is a knowledge base that is going to be required over time in a particular area even if we are not using it at this point.
We have full labs, NRCan has labs, Health Canada, we all do. Many of our scientists are adjunct professors at universities and we have a lot of collaboration with universities. So yes, we have beakers, we have field scientists, we have divers.
I think the work our scientists do is exemplary and they need to be recognized for that. They are always interested when we talk about innovation, collaboration and involvement in policymaking. They sometimes work in difficult conditions and they need to be recognized for that as well.
What do you see as the relationship between science in the federal government and other partners like the private sector, academics and other governments?
Within each discipline, our scientists are part of that community as scientists and they contribute to and benefit from that connection. Everything they do needs to be peer reviewed, so they are active members of their own scientific community. In addition to that, we collaborate with many universities. In my role as champion, one of the areas I am going to be looking at is extending work that was started a couple of years ago on the barriers to collaboration. Is there some way that we can leverage more science, not by doing each other’s work but by combining forces to address parts of questions, each of us in our own competencies?
There is always room for more collaboration and I think by nature scientists in their own fields are highly collaborative: they know they do not have all the answers and the more they can leverage the work that they do, the better the answers will be.
Does that suggest they’re more open to horizontality and collaboration than other parts of government?
Science is very multidimensional so in order to address all the parts of a question, it is better to have more players. That is why when you read any scientific journal you will see the list of contributors is very long. There will be two or three lead scientists, but there will be a long list of others who participated in the research whether it is grad students or junior scientists in labs. I would not say scientists are more collaborative than others, but it is the nature of how the best science is done.
What was the driver for setting up the DM Committee on Science and Technology? What objectives do you have besides improved collaboration?
The science and technology community of federal scientists did not have a deputy champion so it was important for them to have somebody that could, in a coherent way, focus on their issues and also help bring deputy concerns to the forefront. We have an incredibly rich resource in our scientists and we need to make sure that we are providing them with the best support we can and that they, in turn, focus on the priorities of the government.
This requires the collaboration of many deputy ministers and many departments. Any questions that I might be pondering that come up from the assistant deputy ministers and from the community need to be discussed with other deputies who also have a role to play. So that is why we have a community of deputies to help set the direction and then resolve issues and make sure that the scientists are well championed across the board.
Is it a challenge bringing all these players on board or is there a shared commonality of understanding?
It is definitely a shared commonality and a desire to do the right thing, a desire to be coherent, a desire to make sure that with limited resources we are being as innovative as possible and that we are leveraging as much as we can. People came readily to the table when I called the first meeting and have remained engaged. This indicates to me that there was a need to be filled here, to have a place even just to have a conversation about these kinds of things.
Are there other goals you want to achieve with the group?
We are working at strengthening science and policy integration; not science policy but how to better integrate science into the decision-making process. I have had discussions with some universities on how to better do that because, having been trained as a scientist, I know that there is very little discussion of the contribution science makes to policy development in current curricula.
It’s been said that Canada doesn’t take advantage of our scientific learning to promote innovation and prosperity. Is that an issue for this group?
Yes, it is. The innovation agenda is an area that we are interested in and I will be working with the Assistant Deputy Minister Science and Technology Integration Board on that. Together we will determine the best role that innovation may play in regulatory science. It is already quite clear on the policy side.
You have been on the research end of science. How has that helped you lead a department like Fisheries and Oceans?
Well, I would never call myself a scientist because I did not stay in my field beyond university. But I think it provides excellent training. That focuses a lot on asking the right questions and on knowing to dig deeper into the answers. This is k
