Discussions: Science Policy Topics

“Science-based policy” is a remarkably vague idea, and given to sloganistic use even. The idea that scientific evidence relevant to policy decisions should be sought or produced and taken into account in policy decision-making is clear enough, and compelling. However, the phrase lends itself to being used in other less clear and compelling senses, especially as deployed in rhetorical contexts when the one using it is advocating for a particular policy outcome in a particular case.

Feel free to use this space to discuss matters related to the 2010 budget and it's impact on science in Canada. Attached is a PDF of the budget for reference.

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/pdf/budget-planbudgetaire-eng.pdf

The goals of the CSPC, as originally envisioned by its founders, included an aspiration to lay the groundwork for a permanent entity that would live on after the conference:

The Canadian Science Policy Conference has 3 primary objectives:
(1) to identify and discuss current Canadian science policy issues;
(2) to create networking opportunities in order to forge stronger links between scientists and policy-makers; and
(3) to lay the foundation for establishing a Canadian “Virtual Institute” for Science Policy Research.

During the closing plenary, I made a closing remark when given the opportunity.  I began by introducing myself, and my affiliation with the University of Toronto's Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (IHPST).  Some will remember me saying “it has often be remarked that, in order to see where we are going, we need to know where we’ve been.”  I then suggested that many of the conceptual difficulties involved in the issues addressed at the CSPC were very similar to issues that we deal with in the humanities dscipline known as History and Philosophy of Science (HP

Many thanks to everyone who attended the CSPC 2009 and made it a great success. I was deeply impressed by the energy of the delegates and the depth of the discussion, and I hope we can carry this momentum forward!

During his talk last night, Bruce Alberts called for the need to build bridges between science and other fields like law, policy, and politics.  He suggested that individuals with strong backgrounds in science (a PhD and a track record of research experience) would be well-suited to such a role.  In a comment during the Q & A, I suggested that those with training in the humanistic and social studies of science (e.g., philosophers and sociologists of science) might fulfill such a role as well.

The developed world is faced with two complex, parallel problems, which interconnect in a way that society has not had to face before. The scale of the problems is much larger than most are prepared to deal with, and in their totality these issues deal a fundamental challenge to the impetus for economic growth, which has been at the heart of Western progress since the eighteenth century.

Practically all of the major S&T policy statements issued by both the federal and provincial governments over the past few years have identified a disconnect between publicly funded science and technology development and private sector innovation. The diagnosis is straight forward: the knowledge created by university and college researchers is not being used by companies to the degree that it could, or should, be. This compromises private sector innovation, and as a result, limits the wealth generation desired by Canadians and required by a publicly funded science system.

Currently, there is no process for bringing forward new proposals to government for large-scale science investments such as building a major research reactor, a synchrotron light source, or a ocean research network such as NEPTUNE.  Nor is there a coherent process for managing Canada's suite of Major Investments in Science & Technology (MIST), as they are known within government. MIST's are larger in scale than any of the current funding mechanisms available through CFI or other granting agencies.

As relative newcomer to the field of "science policy", I admit that I'm puzzled by one aspect underlying much of what I read. As someone trained in the natural sciences, I'm dogged by a nagging suspicion that many of the methods of the social sciences - in particular, the reliance on case studies and “expert judgment” - are... well... not as "rigorous" as what I'm used to. (My bias likely reflects the divergent metaphysical positions that are infused into natural and social scientists during their university training.