11 / 32
Canada’s previous
attempts at any
sustainable structure
for science advice
have all failed.
April 2016 //
Canadian Government Executive /
11
Design
and knowledge for more effective deci-
sion-making.
Canada has also looked south of the
border for inspiration—the new Minister
has already consulted with the Assistant
to the President for Science & Technology
and the Director of the Office of Science
& Technology Policy (OSTP) in the White
House. The mission of the Office of Sci-
ence and Technology Policy is threefold:
first, to provide the President and senior
staff with accurate, relevant, and timely
scientific and technical advice on all mat-
ters of consequence; second, to ensure
that the policies of the Executive Branch
are informed by sound science; and third,
to ensure that the scientific and technical
work of the Executive Branch is properly
coordinated so as to provide the greatest
benefit to society.
But the US has a highly pluralistic sys-
tem for science advice—one that is well es-
tablished with a culture that values the ap-
plication of this advice to decision-making;
something Canada is sorely lacking. The
advisory landscape is populated with such
organizations as the American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science and
the National Academies of Science, not to
mention numerous advocacy groups. As a
result, there is almost no shortage of ad-
visory capability. Rather, the issue is one
of wading through the various sources of
knowledge and applying a critical eye on
the reliable data and information. That
said, the advisory ecosystem is an open
one—much of the advice is available to the
public for further input and consultation.
Of all of the various national science ad-
vice experiments, the UK model is the one
that Canada pays the most attention to be-
cause the UK is constantly tinkering with
the advisory structures. The BSE (Mad
Cow) and foot and mouth outbreaks gave
considerable impetus to the current struc-
ture that is now in play within the UK.
The UK has a long-established chief
science advisor apparatus. It adopted
guidelines on scientific analysis in policy
making in 1997 and continuously refined
them. (Canada adapted much of the struc-
ture for its Council of Science and Tech-
nology Advisors. Created in 1996, it was
meant to examine scientific controversies
requiring more effective use of reliable
knowledge. It was closed down by the
Harper government in 2006.)
The current UK Government Chief Sci-
entific Adviser and the Government Office
for Science work closely with Departmen-
tal Chief Scientific Advisers to deliver the
science advice, evidence and implemen-
tation that the UK government needs to
govern the country. It does this mainly by
working as a “transmission mechanism”
between expert scientific communities
working in academia, industry and gov-
ernment, and government policy makers.
The UK Parliament also benefits from its
own advisory-analytical support platform.
The UK Parliamentary Office for Science
and Technology (POST) provides advice
on research evidence relating to public
policy issues. For example, POST advisers
provide oral briefings to select committees
on research evidence relevant to inquiries,
or assessments of evidence received by
a committee; and ad hoc peer reviewed
briefings prepared at the request of a se-
lect committee or library research service.
POST covers a wide range of areas includ-
ing health, biological sciences, physical
sciences, engineering, ICT, energy, envi-
ronment and the social sciences. It holds
briefings, convenes workshops and pub-
lishes regular POSTnotes to assist parlia-
mentarians in grappling with key public
policy issues. The federal NDP Party has
introduced several motions in the Cana-
dian Parliament to consider this type of in-
formation service for the Canadian Parlia-
mentarians—it awaits a sustained demand
from elected MPs.
It would be a mistake to assume that