St. Andrews Biological Station as a case study in governmental marine science: Past, present and future
Government/Science Panelist
Dr. Robert Stephenson, Research Scientist, Marine Fish Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
The St. Andrews Biological Station (SABS) offers a 100-year case study in the development and delivery of public marine science in Canada. This paper synthesizes information and lessons learned regarding the relevance of public science from the historical literature and from the views of current employees at Canada’s oldest federal marine research institute.

An evaluation of the current situation (recent decade) at SABS highlights a number of issues facing science in the public sector generally. There has been ongoing attention to ‘relevance’, debate about public good versus private good, ongoing need to enhance interaction with academia, conflict between need for targeted (relevant) science and need to obtain outside funding for science, complexity of government, and numerous challenges associated with fiscal restraint. International agreements related to the marine environment, recent Canadian legislation (e.g. Species at Risk Act, Oceans Act), and the rapid recent evolution of management have placed increasing demands but have created an exciting and challenging landscape for public marine science.

Looking ahead, it is interesting to ask what the legacy of the St. Andrews Biological Station (and of public science) will be? This will be shaped in large part by evolution of strategies for science and technology that include decisions on the balance between public and academic science, on what is considered private vs public good, on long term data monitoring, and on the overall level of funding of public science.

Environmental prediction:
Empowering Canadians to manage their future
Government/Science Panelist
Mark Cantwell, Environmental Prediction Secretariat, Environment Canada
The relative speed and significance of environmental change to the global commons is arguably greater today than in any period of recorded history. Knowledge about such change in advance is required in order to better adapt and/or mitigate the impacts to and from humanity’s complex integrated economic, social, and environmental systems. Fortunately, advancements over the last decade in science and technology as well as inclusive participatory approaches to collaboration may now be brought together to produce more useful predictions of likely or conditional states of these complex systems. The implications for developing and harnessing this predictive capacity may be enormous benefits to humanity by allowing more informed and integrated decision-making concerning the protection of the natural world and the enhancement of human health, safety and prosperity. Yet these advancements in S&T and governance are only now catching the attention of government, industry, and civil society around the world.

In keeping with the Symposium’s Mission for sparking discussion about the state of public science in Canada and to map a path toward producing the best science and public policies, this session will discuss the nature of environmental prediction – its definition, scope, and potential benefits. The presentation will propose a strategic approach to enhancing EP and its usefulness in Canada by setting out objectives, principles, and processes in a Canadian context. It will present a non-traditional way for bringing together the S&T and decision-making communities to produce more useful knowledge about the future in order to better manage the cumulative risks and opportunities of a changing world.

Learning and knowing our way to better land care
Science Panelist
Andrew Campbell, Managing Director, Triple Helix Consulting Pty Ltd.
Knowledge is fundamental if we are to develop more sustainable ways of living on earth.
Three key ingredients are needed in order to design and implement more sustainable systems for producing food and fibre, for managing the natural resource base, and for conserving our natural heritage for future generations. People need to know what to do and how to do it, they need to have the commitment to do it and they need to have the capacity to put more sustainable systems and practices into effect. We need to invest in knowledge in order to make better decisions, to innovate and to learn as we go along.

Knowledge is a classic public good. Left to its own devices, the market will under-invest in knowledge, particularly in the environmental domain. Public science has always played a significant role in generating knowledge for sustainability and will continue to do so. However sustainability debates tend to be just that – debates. Sustain what? For how long? Over what area? For whose benefit? As judged by whom and how? These are all common and legitimate questions as societies come to grips with the challenges of living within their natural capital, while consumption of a finite planet continues to grow apace.

Sustainability science is inherently complex, contextual and contested. Stakes are often high, decisions often urgent, yet the science is often uncertain. How can we do better in building more constructive and durable interfaces between science, policy and management that help us to learn our way through these big, difficult social questions, and to bring the community along with us?

This presentation will explore these questions drawing on recent Australian experience.

Multi-stakeholder research initiatives:
Success through partnership and collaboration
Government/Science Panelist
Janice Zinck, Manager, Mine Waste Management Program, Natural Resources Canada
Sustainable development cannot occur without an integrated effort on the part of government, industry and the public. Similarly, many environmental and natural resource-based challenges can be effectively addressed through a cooperative approach linking science with policy, researchers with users. Natural Resources Canada is a leader in cooperative research and has established several very successful multi-stakeholder initiatives. This presentation will use case studies to examine how the role of multi-stakeholder research can be used to address technical challenges and how the input of different interest groups can contribute to a common goal. Several examples will be presented including the nationally recognized Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND) program and the Green Mines Green Energy initiative.

Innovation Place:
Converting science into economic impact
Research Panelist
Austin Beggs, Director, Corporate Relations, Innovation Place
Innovation Place, as one of 25 science and technology parks in Canada, has been operational since 1980. Over the last decade Innovation Place has started to have significant economic impact on the economy of Saskatchewan. In this panel, the reasons for this success will be explored as well as the economic impact of other science parks in Canada.

An independent and integrated approach to fisheries sustainability
NGO Panelist
Jean Guy d’Entremont, Chair, Fisheries Resource Conservation Council
The presentation will cover the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council’s role in bringing science and industry together under the four major elements of sustainability. Mr. d’Entremont will also cover the importance of collaboration between traditional knowledge and science.

Tearing down walls and building bridges:
Updating Canada’s infrastructure for R&D delivery
Government/Policy Panelist
Dr. Gordon Neish, Director General, Bioproducts Science & Innovation, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
This presentation will address the subject of federally-led approaches to alternative science delivery models aimed at improving integration and collaboration among public and private sector research performers (including the federal and provincial governments, academia, and for-profit and not-for-profit private sector organizations) as a means of more effectively addressing those national economic, social and environmental goals that would benefit from S&T solutions. The recently announced $145 million Agricultural Bioproducts Innovation Program will be used as a case study of a work in progress.

A case study of public-private collaboration in aquaculture: Investigating policies, incentives, and value creation
Academic Panelist
Kate Hoye, University of Ottawa
This presentation discusses findings from a case study investigating a formal public-
private partnership between a public research laboratory and an aquaculture firm in a depressed regional economy. Lessons drawn from this example of public science in the food industry are: 1) that this form of public-private partnership has significant potential to create social and economic value; 2) that attempts by the federal laboratory and publicly-funded granting agency to track the value of partnership activities rely on inappropriate indicators (e.g. patent counts in a field in which patents are largely irrelevant); and, 3) that the federal laboratory in this research collaboration failed to encourage scientists to engage in these types of collaborative research projects.

The role of science in public policy:
Higher reason, or reason for hire?
Academic Panelist
Dr. Jim Gerrie, Cape Breton University
The traditional vision of the role science should play in policy-making is of a two-stage process of scientists first finding out the facts, and then policy-makers making a decision about what to do about them. We argue that this two-stage process is a fiction and that a distinction must be drawn between pure science and science in the service of public policy. When science is transferred into the policy realm, its claims to truth get undermined because we must abandon the open-ended nature of scientific inquiry. When we move from the sphere of science to the sphere of policy, we pick an arbitrary point in the open-ended scientific process, and ask our experts to give us the answer. The choice of the endpoint, however, must always be arbitrary and determined by non-scientific factors. Thus, the two stages in the model of first finding the facts, and then making a decision about what to do, cannot be clearly separated. The second stage clearly affects the first. This conclusion will have implications about existing scientific policy institutions. For example, we advocate that the environmental assessment process be radically overhauled, or perhaps even let go. It will be our position that ultimately a better model for the involvement of scientists in public policy debates is that of being participants in particular interest groups (“hired guns”), rather than as supposedly unbiased consultants to decision-makers.

Optimizing protection of human health and
animal resources from emerging hazards
Government/Policy Panelist
Dr. Judith Bossé, Vice-President, Science Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Globalization increases the pace and movement of goods and people. In addition, climate change modifies the Canadian environment in a way that allows the survival of new hazards previously unknown to Nordic countries. These realities result in the emergence of new or re-emerging hazards threatening Canadians and Canadian resources. It is currently estimated that 80% of emerging infectious diseases affecting humans are of animal origin.

Science plays an increasing role in allowing governments to synergize the actions for early identification of emerging threats, increased capacity for response, decreased turn around times for confirmation of exposed and/or infected individuals/sub-groups, while optimizing the use of public funds and maintaining public confidence.

Since the first outbreak of a highly infectious avian influenza virus in domestic poultry in 2004, and in preparation for a potential introduction more serious than human zoonotic agents such as the H5N1 Asian strain of AI, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Other Government Departments (OGDs) have deployed a series of scientific approaches aimed at minimizing the impact of future incursions. These approaches include the use of modern diagnostic tools, increased real time communication abilities, optimization of current federal/provincial/academia containment laboratories and broadening the expertise of highly qualified personnel from those communities which contribute to the enhanced protection of Canadians and their animal resources.

Science and sustainable fisheries management in DFO
Government/Science Panelist
Dr. Peter Shelton, Research Scientist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Aquatic Resources Division
Sustainable management of Canada’s marine capture fisheries is in the long-term interests of Canadians. This can best be achieved by making use of scientific information in a structured decision-making process within government. DFO claims to be a science-based agency yet science has had a weakening role in the decision-making process over the last two decades. Structured science-based decision-making processes have been designed which could incorporate objectives, risk and the precautionary approach, but these have only rarely been implemented and decision-making has become largely ad hoc and sub-optimal. In this process publicly funded science is used selectively and decisions emphasize short-term benefits to industry rather than long-term public good. This trend is reinforced by the Carty entrepreneurial approach in which research should pay for itself through user-pay schemes and partnerships with industry. This model is flawed with respect to science in federal agencies such as DFO. Costs have already been prepaid with public money. The expectation is that research will be conducted that produces results which will be used in an objective manner by government to make better decisions consistent with long-term public good. Diminished and selective use of science in the decision-making process combined with a de-professionalism trend in public service and bureaucratization of the research process have combined to weaken the integrity of DFO science. Although cost of research to support sustainable fisheries management is moderate relative to value of the resource, it is not clear that Canadians are well served by the current approach. Suggestions are made with regard to improving the role of science in DFO and increasing value to Canadians through sustainably managed fisheries.

Science communications for real democracy
Government/Science Panelist
Carole Brodeur, Senior Advisor in Science Promotion,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
“I’m a science communicator.”
“A what?”
“I explain in French and English what scientists do.”
“Ahh…”

It’s hard to defend as a position when it doesn’t have a status (BI, CO, IS, VET, EG, etc.) or an easy definition. And yet, in public science AND for the public, science communicators are an essential interface – oil for the gears – the right hand of democracy.

In 2007, the government’s message asking us to trust that they know what they’re doing just doesn’t cut it anymore. Change is happening at breakneck speed and, more than ever, the public wants to understand and be involved in government decisions. To do this, it is more necessary than ever to have a grasp of new and complex concepts.

On one hand, interaction between researchers and the public is unavoidable in this day of blogs, debates and web sites. In fact, search engines keep track of the frequency of site changes, which means that a site that has to wade through dozens of approval layers will never appear in search results. On the flip side, any blogger’s site will appear in the top results and may therefore influence public opinion without any foundation in fact. Researchers definitely need experienced science communicators capable of facilitating communication with the public and avoiding blunders, while keeping the communication lines open. Since science communicators have no aversion to science and are not afraid of it, they are capable of fielding the public’s occasionally emotional questions and answering them competently. They can raise the debate to a level where facts are clarified and decisions can be made to everyone’s satisfaction.

Getting the science message out
Government/Policy Panelist
Robert Laliberté, Director, NRC Communications & Corporate Relations, National Research Council Canada
Pitching science to media is no easy task. Messages need to be clear, concise, concrete and hard hitting. The benefits of the science must be immediate and significant for media to pick up a story and run with it. Journalists love headlines such as “New Cure for Cancer”. Their job is to sell newspapers, but our job is to sell science. This is no easy sell. In science, project results can take years to surface. In some cases, results are earth shattering to the science community, but are far less appealing to the public at large. There are issues of interpretation, and the scientist who can’t simplify the science to make it meaningful for the non-scientists among us. So how does one attract media to stories with weak legs? Unknown results? Or stories mired in technical detail? How do you get media to break down your door? Mr. Laliberté tackles these questions and more in his presentation entitled “Spinning Science“.

The right to understand scientific urgency
Media Panelist
Véronique Morin, Science Journalist, Past President of the Canadian Science Writers Association
There is no arguing the fact that, today, something scientific is often a mass media headline. Just think of climate change or emerging diseases, which alone make news on a daily basis. Despite the urgency of current major scientific issues, newsrooms are still ill-equipped for scientific coverage. Few of them even have reporters assigned to the ‘science beat’. Véronique Morin, a scientific journalist for more than 20 years, talks to us about the reasons for this situation and its repercussions.

Surprise me: Injecting the art of storytelling into science
Media Panelist
Tim Lougheed, Science Journalist and President,
Canadian Science Writers Association
People in a position to communicate or promote science often feel obliged to do so in some formal way, reflecting the highly structured format of scientific publication, thereby offering standardized, predictable accounts. Consequently, the best that can happen to these discussions is that they wind up in highly specialized media “ghettoes”, but more often they simply vanish into the data smog that grows thicker around us every day. What is invariably missing is the element of surprise, the essence of good storytelling and the vital ingredient for piqueing an audience’s curiosity and holding its attention. Let us consider what makes for surprise in science and technology, and what therefore makes for a good story.

Building public trust in gene therapy:
The role of the media
Media Panelist
Meriem Maza, Science Journalist and Radio Host, Chevenening Scholar
Since the 90’s, gene therapy has raised as much hope as concern in the public. This is why the relationship between gene therapy and the public has never been a harmonious one. Many scientists believe that public concerns about gene therapy are simply based on misunderstandings and lack of scientific information and these scientists often adopt a ‘deficit theory” about the public, assuming that the public lacks scientific knowledge. However, public opinion research in Europe showed that lack of information about genetic engineering does not simply translate as rejection of it. Also, a US survey, showed that the general attitudes toward biotechnology is positive. Social researchers concluded that the public lacks of moral acceptance and trust which explains the difficult relationship between gene therapy and society. There is therefore an urge to find ways to generate a public trust towards gene therapy. When engaging in such an enterprise, it is important to understand the reasons of this lack of trust. It might be interesting to try to find these reasons within the media coverage of gene therapy, since the media remain a major source of knowledge for the public about the subject. It is known that the media play an important role in shaping public opinions and attitudes but scientists who became active media actors have also a great influence on building this public trust. By examining some of the media attitudes and the behaviour of some of the most renowned gene therapy scientists vis-à-vis the major events in the chronology of gene therapy, this presentation attempts to explain the reasons for this lack of public trust in gene therapy and opens a debate on whether we should really build this trust.

Targeting the Message – Maximizing the Public  Impact of Science Communication
Communications Panelist
Anton Holland, Senior Vice-President, Operations, and Director, Science Communications, NIVA Inc.
So much of what scientists do has an impact on our daily lives, yet most people remain largely unaware of how scientists use their funding, and how their work affects us. Excellent science communication is critical to ensuring that members of the public understand current scientific issues that affect them on a daily basis and are able to determine when scientific research adds value to their lives. As science  communication helps citizens make informed decisions concerning issues that  involve a wide range of subject areas, effective science communication results  from understanding target audiences and developing the best approaches to  meeting their specific information needs.

Pressing matters: Putting public science on the agenda
Media Panelist
Jenny Manzer, Journalist
When the organizers of this conference approached me to speak at this symposium, they told me that they wanted to open up discussion on how to strengthen the role of public science in society. At the time, a five-part series I’d written on Canada’s drug safety system had just been published in the Ottawa Citizen, so I guess they figured I’d know something about this topic – and I thought I did, too.

As a former clinical writer for a medical newspaper I had written hundreds – probably thousands – of articles about important breakthroughs made by public scientists. It was only 7 a.m. in Victoria when we had our conference discussion, so it took me a few minutes to realize that the organizers were talking about public scientists outside of academe.

Surely, I’d written some stories about what goes on in government labs? I vaguely recalled that the few times I’d tried to track down scientists working for government, they usually weren’t eager to talk. So, I started to consider, why aren’t public scientists in the public eye? What are the obstacles, and how can we overcome them?

This talk will cover some practical ways to get working journalists interested in what goes on in your lab and how to deal with them once you’ve gotten their attention. I’ll also look at the consequences of increased awareness of public science, both the potential benefits and the potential sticking points.

University research and the media: A few ideas for raising the visibility of researchers in the media
Academic Panelist
Julie Martineau, Président, Association des communicateurs scientifiques du Québec
What innovative means can universities come up with to raise the visibility of their researchers in the media and reach the general public? This presentation will look at a few university success stories in Quebec and elsewhere in the world.

How can we narrow the gap separating scientists and journalists? This presentation will address a few ways of thinking about this question.

Lastly, the presentation will also look at potential collaboration between subsidizing organizations, academia and science recreation organizations to make scientific research more accessible to the general public.

Is federal science important:
Who should care, and how should we tell them?
Government/Science Panelist
Dr. Alex Bielak, Director, Science and Technology Liaison,
Environment Canada
Canada is a major power in the production of environmental research articles with federal organizations contributing nearly 40% of the Canadian output between 1995 and 2004. Although Federal S&T is key for protecting and advancing Canada’s public interests, over 60% of Canadians say they have too little information about the impact of science and research on Canadian society. Therefore communicating the value of public science should be top of mind in the daily work of all of Canada’s science-based departments.

However, scatter-gunning a receptive public with science “messaging” via the media and/or the internet is not enough to ensure that public good science is understood and ultimately gets into the hands of those who can use it. This is particularly true given significant declines in numbers of science journalists on staff in the major mass media, and the proliferation and segmentation of the media. A case for more selective targeting of audiences with information pertinent to their needs, and the need for specialized knowledge brokering units, will be made and illustrated by a number of case studies.

Natural resources science and technology:
Building on our strengths
Cassie Doyle, Deputy Minister, Natural Resources Canada
Natural resources and energy research are areas of national interest, from both an economic and environmental perspective. Natural Resources Canada, through its policies and S&T, works with its partners and stakeholders to encourage innovation and discovery so that Canada can build a sustainable national competitive advantage. The Department focuses on what it does best: S&T that impacts economic development, supports environmental responsibility and addresses the safety and security of Canadians.

Excelling as a science-based regulator
Carole Swan, President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) believes that public science is a valuable tool for public good. The Agency uses science to safeguard food, animals and plants, to enhance the health and well-being of Canada’s people, environment and economy.

As much of the CFIA’s work takes place behind the scenes, the public is not always aware of the importance of science in the Agency’s work. Through an aggressive recruitment and outreach strategy, the Agency hopes to attract more scientists who will both help develop strong science-based policy and communicate the value of science to Canadians.

Federal science: Making the invisible visible
Michael Horgan, Deputy Minister, Environment Canada
Unless you are a chiropractor – or need the services of a chiropractor – you probably never think about your skeleton. But you rely on it every day to hold you upright. Science, and in particular, federal science, is like your skeleton. It’s the framework that underpins a great deal of the government’s policies, programs, and services, but it’s not a function that is noticed or attended to by the general public. Unless, of course, things go wrong. Despite the fact that roughly two-thirds of Environment Canada’s staff and budget are devoted to science and technology, recent public opinion research found that only two percent of Canadians identified “conducting scientific research” as a role that Environment Canada plays in serving the Canadian public.

Does it matter that the public doesn’t know that science supports the functions they value? Does it matter that they don’t know that much of that science is carried out by the federal government? It’s hard to value what you don’t see – ask your chiropractor. Clearly, Environment Canada, and the Government of Canada more generally, needs to communicate more strongly the role of sound science as basis of its decisions, services, and programs for Canadians. It also needs to highlight the significant intramural scientific and technical capacity that supports those decisions, services, and programs.

Communicating the value of public good science should take many forms. We need better performance measures for government science. We need to tell people about the science we do and how it contributes to the services they do see and value. We need to get science into the hands of users in order to build a strong “user community” that can speak to the need for our “science services”. And we need to get citizens into science to build literacy and capacity, to empower them to use science, and to build support for science as a core function of the business of government.