Wed, 6 Dec 1995: REPORT of the Confederation of Biological Scienctists meeting with the Reform Party From: cfbssp@hpb.hwc.ca Subject: Reform Party Session Dear All, The following provides a summary of the session with the Reform Party that I participated in, Dec 5th. Comments welcome. Cheers! Paul -------------------------------------------------------------- Summary of Meeting with Reform Party, December 5, 1995 Participants Reform Party Preston Manning, Leader Werner Schmidt, Industry Critic Three staff members Science Groups Paul Hough, CFBS Paul Vincett, president of the Canadian Assoc. of Physicists Don Savage, Exec. Director, CAUT Jean-Georges Langelle, president, National Consortium John de la Mothe, Assoc. Prof., Univ. of Ottawa (he was a panelist at our November science policy session - very knowledgeable and effective) This gathering was at the invitation of Mr. Manning who posed the main question: "What should be done to raise the importance and role of science on the agenda of the 35th Parliament, the government, and the federal political parties?" It was a very informal discussion in which Manning took a lead role, but he also listened very well. He stayed for over two hours, and we carried on with Schmidt for an additional couple of hours. Since their party is in the process of setting the policies for the next few years (including the next election), the timing is good to have some input on the development of rational approaches - they are receptive. All of those invited came away with the sense that the Reform Party is very strongly in favour of supporting science and research in all areas. These two at least are very well informed and thoughtful with respect to the implications of reducing the support of research. What they need is information and advice. To that end, we discussed several points: a) The Reform Party has a few points of contact on these issues: Werner Schmidt is the gate-keeper into their caucus; and Daryl Reid is their Director of Research (one of his assistants was at this session). We suggested that they form a group of their own members who have universities, colleges, government labs and other research institutes or facilities, much like what the Liberals have done. b) To raise the profile and awareness of science, they need specific science related questions to ask during Question Period. An example would be to query how the government is assessing the impact of the cuts in the science programs within the different departments. They would be willing to use such questions. c) Like many groups, they need a framework that describes science policy in clear terms, and provides the hooks on which to attach the components of a policy. This may sound easy, but will take a fair bit of thought. However, it would eminently useful for many reasons. d) The fact that there have been 39 reports on science policy directions and needs since 1968 was raised, along with the fact that very few of the numerous recommendations have been implemented. The latest NABST report is the most recent example. Discussion centred on what a government could do with respect to raising the profile of science: having a champion of science at the Cabinet table; having a respected Chief Science Advisor in the PCO; and insisting that the Ministers all incorporate science considerations in their decisions. The ways and means of obtaining advice from the science community was also discussed in this context. It was useful to have John de la Mothe present to provide information about what other countries have tried or are doing. In essence, it will be upo to the Canadian science community to develop the means of providing advice. At the moment, the National Consortium is probably the cloest thing that we have to a broad based body from the science community, and it is a long way from being able to provide the kind of advice that say the National Academy of Science does in the U.S. e) There was considerable discussion on having a real objective for the science community to try to achieve. The obvious historical example is the NASA moon program, but it is true that the community does not have specific goals that outsiders can relate to easily, even if those goals exist in fact. Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of what is it that we are trying to accomplish, not just individually, but collectively. I am not proposing that we rush out and say that we are working to erradicating disease x, or renew species y. But perhaps there is merit in having a broad goal. However, it would be better if the science community established such a goal (or goals) rather than have it (them) imposed. f) The communication and interpretation of science for the media, the politicans and the public is an area of real concern to Manning. He was asking who are the good science communicators in Canada, and whether this would be a way of raising the profile of science. It was pointed out that there is already a large effort in this area, but that getting the message through to people like himself and Schmidt is very difficult - their receivers need to be working. That does not diminish the need to be more proactive on this, and was a primary motivation for requesting information on grant allocations, research results, and the effects of funding changes from you in a recent message. Conclusion This was a good session at which there was no rankor between the different science groups present, or between the politcal crew and ourselves. It could well turn into a more regular exchange. To assist this process, I suggest that you contact your local M.P., from whatever party, and engage him/her in a dialogue as to what he/she knows of or expects from the research community, and then invite them in to see the work that is going on in your institution. You can put this in the context of such meetings as described above, and in the context of the science community becoming a lot more involved in the political process through necessity. Brief summaries of your impressions or of comments or of suggestions made would be very useful following any such interactions. --------------------------------------------------- Paul Hough Executive Director, CFBS tel: (613) 225-8889 fax: (613) 225-9621 e-mail: cfbssp@hpb.hwc.ca -----------------------------------------