- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Building Capacities and Setting Priorities in National Science and Technology
Abstract
AS governments attempt to reduce the scale of their activities in the face of deficit reduction exercises and improve the efficiency and management of their operations, federal laboratories have not been spared. In many countries, the relative share of government-performed science and technology has declined. Downsizing has thus brought questions of scientific capacity and priority setting to the fore. By taking the case of Canada, this paper explores the meaning of these shifts in resources, re-casts the role of government labs in the public interest, and outlines a recent exercise to use a scenario approach—in lieu of a formal foresight activity—to re-establish mandates and directions.
Content
Author and article information
Notes and References
An earlier version of this paper was presented at a NATO Advanced Research Workshop on the Reform of Federal Laboratories in Manchester, England on 3–5 June 1999. In the preparation of this paper, I would like to thank Tyler Chamberlain for his research assistance.
Cf. B. Ä. Lundvall (ed.), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter, London, 1992; Christopher Freeman, ‘Japan: A new national system of innovation’, in Giovanni Dosi et al. (eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London, 1988; and ‘The national system of innovation in historical perspective’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 1, 1995, pp. 5–24; and Richard Nelson (ed.), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Study, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993. See also Charles Edquist (ed.), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter, London, 1997; John de la Mothe and Gilles Paquet (eds), Local and Regional Systems of Innovation, Kluwer, Boston, 1998.
The language of national systems is extended in a recent book in the form of a political argument for the need of ‘national projects’ in order to regain a sense of leadership in government. Cf. John Godfrey and Rob McLean, The Canada We Want: Competing Visions for the New Millennium, Stoddart, Toronto, 1999.
John de la Mothe, ‘Canada and national systems of innovation’, Innovation, Science and Technology Review Resource, Volume II, Government of Canada, Ottawa, 1994, pp. 11–20.
These issues are dealt with in detail in John de la Mothe, ‘One small step in an uncertain direction: the Science and Technology Review and Public Administration in Canada’, Canadian Public Administration, 39, 3, Autumn 1996, pp. 403–17.
Cf. Chapter 15 of the September 1996 Report of the Office of the Auditor General. For a detailed discussion of the challenges of small open economies, such as Canada, in setting priorities for its science budgets, see John de la Mothe and Paul R. Dufour, ‘Engineering the Canadian comparative advantage: Technology, trade and investment in a small open economy’, Technology in Society, 12, 4, 1990, pp. 369–396.
Cf. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970.
Michael Gibbons et al., The New Production of Knowledge, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1994; Michael Gibbons, ‘Governments and the new production of knowledge’, in John de la Mothe (ed.), Science, Technology and Governance, Cassell, London, 2000 (in press).
Susan Strange, The Retreat of the State, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
John de la Mothe and Gilles Paquet (eds), Local and Regional Systems of Innovation, Kluwer, Boston, 1998; Zoltan Acs (ed.), Regional Innovation and Global Change, Cassell, London, 2000, in press.
John de la Mothe and Gilles Paquet, ‘The dispersive revolution’, Optimum: Journal of Public Sector Management, October 1994.
One broad statement on this disjuncture is John de la Mothe and Paul Dufour, ‘Is science policy in the doldrums?’, Nature, 374, 16 March 1995.
Government documents that feature this language include Industry Canada's Building a More Innovative Economy (1995) and the National Research Council's Strategic Plan (1996).
Anthony Giddens, The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Polity, Cambridge, 1998.
Robert M. May, ‘The scientific investments of nations’, Science, 281, 3 July 1998.
John de la Mothe and Gilles Paquet (eds), Evolutionary Economics and the New International Political Economy, Pinter, London, 1996; Philip Gummett (ed.), Globalization and Public Policy, Edward Elgar, London, 1996.
John de la Mothe, ‘Government science in the public interest’, Science Assistant Deputy Minister’s Committee, Government of Canada, Ottawa, March 1999.
Cf. Paul Cunningham (ed.), Science and Technology in the United Kingdom, Cartermill, London, 1999; and Philip Gummett, Deborah Cox, Rebecca Boden and Kate Barker, ‘The changing central government of science and technology’, Draft Paper, NATO ARW, Manchester, England, June 1999.
For example, because the mandate for Therapeutic Products Division of Health Canada was written in 1953, xenotransplantation must be treated under the category of biomedical devices.
Please note that the abbreviations RSA’ related scientific activities’ (i.e. R&D + RSA = total S&T); NRES-natural Resources Canada; ENV = Environment Canada; AGR = Agriculture Canada; F&O = Department of Fisheries and Oceans; and NDEF-national Defence.
Conducted by John de la Mothe and Ron Freedman as part of ‘SBDA capacity studies’ in late 1998 and 1999.
John de la Mothe, ‘Government science in the public interest’, op. cit.
John de la Mothe and Ron Freedman.
For a detailed discussion of the development of the federal lab system in Canada, see Paul Dufour and John de la Mothe (eds), Science and Technology in Canada, Longman, London, 1993. For a sketch of what this new governance structure might look like, see John de la Mothe and Gilles Paquet, ‘Circumstantial evidence: A note on science policy in Canada’, Science and Public Policy, 21, 4, August 1994, pp. 261–8.
Science and Technology for the Mew Century.
Canada 2005.
The Federal Science and Technology Strategy: A Review of Progress, Chapter 22.