Prime Minister Stephen Harper announces a new science and technology strategy at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario on Thursday May 17, 2007. (CP PHOTO/Frank Gunn) CANADA

At a political level in Canada, discussions on science and innovation have always suffered from CPA — Continuous Partial Attention. Carrying on this tradition, the Oct. 16 throne speech will no doubt make overtures regarding research and innovation, likely including reference to a revised federal science and technology plan.

Now, imagine if a cabinet-level, full-time science minister were to stand up in Parliament and say something like this:

“I cannot begin to tell you how proud I am today to rise in this chamber and speak in support of a speech from the throne which, for the first time in our country’s history, has placed science and technology (S&T) in such a prominent place of government operations and in the political agenda. The provincial and federal governments must work together to forge a coordinated national policy. S&T must move to the centre of government decision-making. “The consensus which has emerged identified four critical issues which must be addressed immediately. The first has to do with creating a culture in Canada which appreciates and instills pride and celebrates Canada’s scientists, engineers and innovators, which promotes a strong awareness of the importance of Canada today, and in the decades ahead, of astute application of S&T which utilizes the talents of Canadian women in science careers. We must expand the capacity of our universities to respond to new demands for basic research and the training of researchers for exploration of new disciplines and the development of new skills. There is a national consensus that we must urgently develop and use new strategic or … ‘enabling’ technologies which underpin our industrial capabilities. “For the first time, Canadians have a prime minister who is demonstrating appreciation of achievements of science, on a regular basis and in a formal way, with Canada’s most eminent scientists, engineers and leaders from business, industry and labour. He will personally chair this new board or council. It will assess our national goals and policies regarding science and technology and their application to improve Canada’s competitiveness and maintain prosperity … Lastly, there is consensus that governments should use the full scope of their instruments to advance R&D. I believe all parties are in agreement that we must take long-range action. That is why we have made our plans for a federal S&T policy with an eye on the next generation, not with an eye on the next election.”

Just imagine … The words quoted here are excerpted from a speech given in the House of Commons by a former Progressive Conservative science minister on Oct. 8, 1986. Can we expect to hear something as far-reaching in scope this week?

Sadly, the signals are not positive. For some time now, federal science, technology and innovation policy has been festering in a kind of primordial soup carbon-dated to 2007, when the prime minister announced a so-called ‘mobilizing framework’ in Waterloo.

Six years on, it needs a new spark. Despite continued statements suggesting that the climate for Canadian science is being supported and is improving — in part by an anxious scientific leadership pre-occupied with funding cuts — the country’s overall R&D spending is dropping and our global standing on innovation measures remains stagnant.

Government scientists remain on a leash. Formal science advice provided by the Science, Technology and Innovation Council operates in stealth mode, with no public accountability. The scientific image of Canada as an open, knowledge nation has taken a hit. Science is apparently only useful if it powers commerce. These and other manifestations of a worn-out science and innovation policy show little direction, vision or commitment.

So here’s some advice to the newish team trying to shape a revised research-innovation agenda. Demonstrate meaningful leadership. Talk to Canadians — for real. Listen to your own scientists. Take lessons from abroad. Support all of the research community and respect their inputs as allies — not as enemies.

Consider joined-up policy engaging other parts of the pan-Canadian policy community as well as provincial and territorial partners. Take a leaf from the PC-led national S&T strategy of 1987 and build a new science and innovation strategy by making it national in scope. Take on good speechwriters who know how to talk about science and its value to relevant audiences.

For some time now, federal science, technology and innovation policy has been festering in a kind of primordial soup carbon-dated to 2007, when the prime minister announced a so-called ‘mobilizing framework’ in Waterloo.

And get real — with more than ambient rhetoric — about creating a culture that values skills, excellence, entrepreneurship and talent, both with our society and within Parliament.

To be sure, knowledge communities in this country also bear some responsibilities. Articulating more powerful arguments about the role of science and research in Canadian society is one of them. They must keep in mind the need to know the limits of policy-making and take on a renewed approach to the role of science in nation-building. Advocating the usefulness of supposedly useless science will be a continuous challenge.

As Mike Lazaradis, in his 2012 Power of Ideas speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, argued:

“As we develop science policy we need to look beyond the short-term context, beyond the research that looks immediately promising. If we’re blinded by the urgency of our problems, we will go the wrong way. We’ll be investing in horses, carriages and cleaning up the streets instead of fostering the research that can give rise to an idea or technology that is going to change the world.”

It is heartening to see that the Canadian research lobby is waking up from its lethargic stupor and starting to engage in the political debates with a more activist and constructive agenda: the successful ELA campaign overturning a small-minded federal decision; the Death of Evidence march last year and its successor Stand Up for Science by Evidence for Democracy (evidencefordemocracy.ca); the Get Science Right experiment of CAUT (getscienceright.ca); the Concerned Science efforts of PIPSC (pipsc.ca); not to mention growing movements in various professional groups for more open science.

We may have witnessed a tipping point with a new generation of tech-savvy and politically conscious scientists and their allies who understand social media and know how to mobilize it for political effect. But it will take more to sustain the message. Here are some modest suggestions for maintaining the momentum as the Harper government launches its next S&T strategy:

Develop a clear public statement outlining why science matters (see President Obama’s 2013 speech to the National Academy of Sciences) with examples that have public resonance. And resist the temptation to oversell the impacts.

Invite local parliamentarians from all stripes to events where science and innovation are on the agenda. Consider an annual science day-fair on Parliament Hill or provincial legislatures, in addition to orchestrating balanced, public science debates with all the political parties in the lead-up to federal or provincial elections.

Recognize that science is ultimately aimed at helping shape the human condition in all its respects. Yes, it needs to be framed within a contemporary context — but since science also provides the polity with sound evidence based on facts, it should not be arbitrarily muzzled or leashed. As Thomas Jefferson once said, whenever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government.

Ensure a major science presence in the celebration plans for the forthcoming 150th anniversary of Canada. Science helped build this country and it continues to add to its social and economic foundations.

Challenge senior government officials and private sector leaders at all levels on future directions of science for Canada. Get their attention about the need to renovate dated science and innovation strategies by making them more open and relevant to today’s climate and public needs.

Target key messages to senior ministers with science and research portfolios, as well as the board members of granting councils and other funding bodies, including members of the federal government’s Science, Technology and Innovation Council. While their counsel is secret, the STIC’s stated mandate is to provide evidence-based S&T advice on issues critical to Canada’s economic development and Canadians’ social well-being. Demand public accountability and transparency in their operation. And ask why Canada, unlike other jurisdictions, has no chief science adviser or ambassador for science.

Examine, enlist and learn from similar campaigns that have been effective in other countries, especially those in the UK, France, Australia and the United States and especially on how to engage private sector associations and lobby groups more constructively.

Design and coordinate a collective research community brief or vision statement for next year’s budget and beyond. Make it clear that researchers understand how to operate in a climate of austerity and priority-setting without jeopardizing first principles of excellence, integrity and transparency.

Ultimately, Canadians require a more directed and visionary approach in moving beyond just the rhetoric. It’s time to initiate a meaningful spark that can bring life and passion back to this country’s science and innovation policy.

Paul Dufour is principal of PaulicyWorks, a science and technology policy consulting firm based in Gatineau, Quebec. He is a Fellow and Adjunct Professor with the Institute for Science, Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa and member of the External Advisory Board to the Battelle Center for Science and Technology Policy at the John Glenn School of Public Affairs.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.