Commentary by Cécile Sabourin, coordinator of the Q/C Committee, Charter of Human Responsibilities, Professor at Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue (UQAT) and former president of the Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’université (FQPPU)

Preston Manning, well known in Canada for his active participation in the foundation of the Reform party and more recently founder of the Center for building democracy, was invited by Media@McGill on November 12 to participate in a conservation on Canadian public policies pertaining to research in science and technology. The conversation was led by  Darin Barney, Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Technology and Citizenship at McGill University.

This controversial issue is brought to public attention by Media@McGill with the purpose of educating and informing and, let’s hope, raising awareness on the disturbing way our taxes are presently fed to the business sector through decisions on research funding.  Federal public funding of research and development (R&D) is presently allocated according to economic and commercial priorities, leaving research on many social and humanistic issues without proper support.

Almost no one would deny that science and technology have a major role in shaping society and most agree that the government has to support public research. However, according to Preston Manning, members of parliament have inadequate preparation to take decisions in this matter.  He was very explicit about this inability in the case of the Conservative Party.  Convinced himself of the importance of science and technology, he intends to improve the situation – fill this « big hole » – with his new think tank, that is the Center for building democracy. This Center, which is tightly linked to the Conservative party of Canada and its values, retains as an objective to educate about the role and importance of science and technology.  Is this good news?

M. Barney recalled the major controversial decisions and declarations of the actual government of Canada – namely concerning, climate change,  pressure on scientists working for federal departments and agencies, debatable appointments, unethical interventions, inappropriate research funding policies, etc.  He also recalled the manifest disregard of this government for the scientist community.

According to Preston Manning most of the controversies are banal in the political context.  He nevertheless admitted that two major ones – about the magazine Nature and the climate change – could be explained by ignorance and were of some concern to him.  He offered as a possible explanation, the Conservatives’ views by stressing their tendency to analyze all issues in light of their values and principles, which of course place the market and its freedom above all.

As questions and answers went on, my concerns and anxiety increased.

Mr. Manning expressed clearly that his Center for democracy aims at educating people about the similarities between science and business, mentioning their similar role in society.  He stressed the importance of freedom for both the science and business communities, stating that responsibilities must accompany this freedom.  Reaching a balance between freedom and responsibilities is the real challenge.

What causes problem in these affirmations is the guiding values behind the implementing of an education program by the Center.  Social justice, solidarity, equality, peace, common good, etc. are completely absent on the list, as anyone can ascertain by viewing the web site which presents conservative values as follows :

• Individual freedom, worth and responsibility
• Free markets, freedom of choice and limited government
• Canada’s cultural, religious and democratic traditions
• Strong families, and communities
• Principled and prepared leadership
• An informed, deliberative democracy
• Grassroots, democratic participation and decision-making

The conversation also addressed the issue of regulations.  Both Mr. Manning and Mr. Barney agreed that some regulation is essential and that abuses and mistakes must be anticipated and limited by restrictions.   There ended the agreement, given the impossibility to agree on the objectives and values that should guide regulations and restrictions.  The mention of tar sands and women’s right illustrated this and provoked Preston Manning’s affirmation that politics are essentially controversial.

This led Mr. Manning to use his active political experience to express a criticism towards scientists, whose writings and briefs are rarely adequate for the needs of political caucus and committees.   The personnel surrounding politicians usually translate scientists’ ideas and messages in formats understood by political decision-makers.   Recognizing that incorrect interpretations and mistakes can happen in this process, he invited members of the scientific community not only, to improve their message but also  to bring their ideas to the forefront of the political arena, more often.

M. Barney was carefull to bring back the issue of the fundamental characteristics of science and entrepreneurship, explaining that both are massively social endeavors and achievements and are based on social, legal and collective resources. In his opinion, insisting only on the individualistic character of science and entrepreneurship is misleading.  Mr. Manning responded by mentioning that both science and business need standards based on a national strategy.  Linking science and business in a national strategy is exactly what Canadian policies have done, setting the scene for real partnerships between business and research.  Facilitating the use of university resources by the private sector is the clue, the recipe to success.  I would say it is a toxic recipe.

The theme of power sharing had to be brought to the conversation.  Power, being so obviously unequal, using it to « impose » conservative values is obviously a problem, as Mr. Barney appropriately brought up.  The problem is even greater due to the fact that these values are not widely shared either, by the Canadian population, nor the scientific community.

Many Canadians have expressed their disagreement, for instance, with governmental priorities regarding environment, social problems and women’s rights, .  Power abuse  takes all its sense here when M. Manning openly avoid responding a question on the necessity of rethinking the organization of power in our society.  He preferred to insist on his preference for a  « case by case » approach to decision-making by who ever has formal capacity and responsibility to make those decisions.

Daren Barney and Media@McGill deserve thanks for this very essential initiative of bringing to public attention issues and controversies that challenge prevailing orthodoxies.