Keynote Address - NanoForum Canada
Arthur J. Carty
Canada Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Forum Edmonton
17 June 2004
[ PDF
Version ]
Good afternoon everyone.
It is a real honour and a pleasure to be invited to participate in this
NanoForum, the first but certainly not the last of its kind in Canada and
another important milestone in bringing Canadian Nanoscience researchers
together to exchange ideas and to debate issues in one of the most exciting and
rapidly growing areas of science and technology of our time. One of the most
telling measures of how rapidly a field is evolving is the number of new faces
you see at the next conference you attend. Judging from the attendance here and
particularly the number of young people I'd have to say that nanoscience is
alive and growing in Canada.
As some of you will know, I have been and still am a strong supporter of
nanotechnology. It was during my previous role as the President of the NRC
during which we entered into an innovative and bold new initiative with the
University of Alberta, the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada to
establish a unique collaboration that has become the National Institute for
Nanotechnology here in Edmonton.
Today I would like to say a few words about:
- my new job as National Science
Advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada;
- my views and perceptions on the
evolution of nanotechnology in Canada;
- the international trends in
nanotechnologies and Canada's relative positioning
- Challenges and
opportunities that we must address in the coming years.
More importantly however is that I would like to hear from you not so much as
to your views on where the scientific developments in nanotech are heading but
rather how you see nanoscience and nanotechnology contributing to the issues we
all face as Canadians such as health, environment, our international
competitiveness and our economic growth over the long term.
I also believe we must think seriously about what the future strategy for
nanotech should be and what steps are needed to move to a new level of activity,
coordination, integration and visibility on the world stage. Which brings me to
my first point: The most important part of advising is listening to the
community first. I have very much enjoyed the talks in the sessions and the
discussions during the breaks today. I think we have heard some brilliant ideas
and remarkable developments and there are many opportunities to explore.
Today has just confirmed my impression that there is pioneering world class
work going on in Canada in Nanotech.
Nevertheless, I'm sure you would all want to know first of all about my new
position as the National Science Advisor to the Prime Minister: my role, my
mandate, my priorities and most importantly perhaps how I can be effective as a
spokesperson and champion for science and innovation in Canada.
The creation of the position of National Science Advisor has been very well
received across the community and has even been described as a bold new
endeavour for Canada. Indeed such a position is unprecedented in this country,
although there are equivalent positions in a number of other countries including
the USA, UK, Sweden, Finland and Australia. I was therefore both honoured and
somewhat awed by the task the PM asked me to undertake.
But many took it as a recognition of the Prime Minister's interest and
commitment to science and the importance that science, technology and innovation
has - and will have increasingly on all aspects of our lives: economic, social
and cultural in the years ahead.
The principal element of the NSA's mandate will be to provide sound,
unbiased, non-partisan advice on S&T to the Prime Minister in the context of
Canada's goal to be one of the most innovative countries in the world. In this
regard I will certainly have to play a role in building a truly national
advisory capacity that provides the PM with authoritative, well considered
options for decision making.
Clearly as the Chinese Proverb says: "… we live in interesting
times". With the election less than two weeks away the priorities and focus
of the Government of Canada may change. I have no idea how this will play out
but I did take note that the day following the announcement of my appointment,
Preston Manning wrote an article in the Globe and Mail praising the move and I
believe there was broad support for the creation of the position and office
across the political spectrum. I feel that regardless of the outcome of the
election, the need and the desire for a National Science Advisor will remain.
But how effective I can be in that role will depend very much on our ability as
a community to convey the importance of science to both the politicians and the
public and to articulate clear, forward looking positions on science and
innovation. Everyone, all of us, has a role to play in this - but as scientists
we often shrink from it.
Let me tell you a story which brings home the issue. (I heard this originally
from Dr. Caspar Einem, an Austrian and EU Minister).
During a break in a meeting a politician and a journalist took a walk in a
park, when a frog suddenly jumped out in front of them and started to speak:
"I am a scientist who has been put under a spell. If you break the spell by
lifting me up and kissing me I will serve you forever!"
The journalist said to the politician: "Wouldn't that be something for
you? Just imagine, you would always have an expert on hand to give you
scientific advice!" But the politician said: "No, better not. We all
know what scientists are like, they talk too much, know everything better than
you and always want to be the centre of attention. But it would be ideal for
you! Editorial offices don't often have science writers, or if they do, they are
not always very well informed. He would be really valuable for you. So, go on,
pick up the frog and kiss him!" The journalist picked up the frog and
looked at it briefly before putting it in his pocket. The politician was amazed
and asked "Why did you put the frog in your pocket instead of kissing
him?" To which the journalist replied "Because a talking frog is a
hundred times more interesting for the media than the best scientist".
There are some good lessons for all of us in this story.
In particular the nanoscience and nanotech community will have to be
proactive in making everyone aware of what nanoscience is and what it will
contribute to Canada's economy and society in future.
Now there is no doubt that the research community believes that the NSA will
be its advocate to government for science. This is an essential and appropriate
role. But the advice also has to take into account the views not only of the
scientific community but also those of private industry, communities and
governments at all levels.
Many of us here today come from a world in which precision and hard facts are
the basis of enquiry and debate.
However, the world of science policy doesn't always work like that. Facts and
data will abound, but opinions, beliefs and values are also very much a part of
the policy debate.
I am certainly going to find that a challenge.
Security, health, energy, the environment as well as economic growth are all
critical issues that we must face as a nation. These are issues where science
and technology must play an important role not only in providing evidence and
fact but also in developing solutions.
So a National Science Advisor, working in isolation will not be enough to
address the challenge - and building the capacity, in my office, from scratch,
to do the job will be an important task over the next few months.
In the short term, I realise that to have any impact I will have to focus on
only a few important issues from the literally hundreds of "high priority
projects" that have been suggested to me. The commercialization of research
results is a clear and short-term priority. This is a big issue, being discussed
in most advanced nations of the world. For example at the recent Carnegie G8
Science Ministers meeting I attended on behalf of the Minister of Industry in
Talloires, France earlier this month, commercialization and deriving economic
value from research was clearly an issue that was of prime concern for all the
leaders present.
I have been asked to work with the Minister of Industry and Parliamentary
Secretary on Science and Small Business to build a comprehensive and integrated
action plan that will see Canada emerge as one of the world leaders in turning
ideas into wealth for the nation. Of course we may have 2 completely new people
in these roles in a few weeks!
A second priority will be in international development.
In the Prime Minister's response to the Speech from the Throne he alluded to
the commitment to dedicating 5% of Federal S&T expenditures to bring
Canadian technological expertise to bear on the challenges of developing
countries. We are currently gearing up to determine what this means and how
Canada can mobilise to take action.
Finally, the Prime Minister has asked me to work closely with the Minister of
Industry and Parliamentary Secretary Fontana, to conduct an assessment of
Federal funding of S&T over the past 6 years: its structure, its impact, its
strengths and the gaps which need attention.
I'm sure that many of you are aware of the remarkable transformation which
has occurred in the university research environment in particular over the past
six years as a result in large part of the incremental investment of $13 billion
in S&T by the Federal Government, through increased funding to the granting
councils and the NCEs, the creation of CFI, Genome Canada, Canada Research
Chairs, Millennium and Graduate Scholarships, etc. NRC has benefited from this
investment too - as NINT demonstrates. The infrastructure and research funding
has improved dramatically to the point where Canada has become very attractive
as a place to work and start a career. Emerging areas such as genomics and
nanotechnology have benefited significantly and as a nation we now have a
demonstrable presence on the world scene in these fields. Yet Canada's
investments at the innovation end of the spectrum have not matched those in the
knowledge generation area. Likewise government science has not received so much
attention. These gaps and some of the barriers to collaboration and partnership
which exist across the innovation system certainly need to be examined.
But in the present context we might ask - are we keeping pace with worldwide
progress and developments in nanotech? On a per capita basis Japan spends
approximately $6 US followed by US, Switzerland, Israel, Netherlands, France and
Germany with $3 per capita. Using this measure (and to be perfectly frank it is
not clear how the data is derived) Canada is spending between $1 and $3 dollars
- probably at the high end of this range if we consider infrastructure
investments compared to these other countries.
Where have we come from in nanotechnology and in national activities? Over
the past five years I would point to two successes and one where we fell short.
In nanoelectronics there were early moves to build networks, nationally through
the group of experts brought together by CIAR, and internationally through the
links to Europe in Cerion. The decision to move ahead with NINT in 2001 is a
growing success, demonstrating a commitment from federal and provincial
governments to bring together University and federal labs. It is perhaps a bit
unfortunate that we have not yet been successful in establishing a Nanotech
Network of Centres of Excellence where the added funding and collaboration could
give a significant impetus to the national effort.
NSERC's decision to establish the Nano Innovation Platform was a big step
forward in showing their commitment to build critical mass. Some provincial
governments showed considerable foresight by providing resources to help build
their nanoscientific communities. The results from the NanoQuebec story - which
Robert Sing told about this afternoon and the Province of Alberta are a measure
of this.
The key points here are that this field is expanding rapidly in Canada with
the influx of new talent, the opening of new research domains and the building
of new tools and infrastructure. Peter Grütter has done an excellent job today
of mapping that evolution for academic research.
So where does Canada sit with respect to the rest of the world in
nanotechnology? Virtually every advanced economy or developing economy with
aspirations of prospering in the 21st Century has identified nanotechnology as a
priority for investment and action. The approaches vary considerably from
targeted explicit national strategies to less prescriptive broad policies that
allow for the emergence of new ideas and applications. Let me give you a few
examples.
Germany made an early decision to invest heavily in materials particularly
powders and coatings with strong explicit ties to industrial partners. German
Nano Competency Centres have industrial partners particularly from the chemical
and metals sectors and are technology and applications driven. In 2002 Germany
began to broaden the science base with its next competition.
Taiwan has made massive targeted investments in nanotechnologies to provide
short-term product oriented outcomes for the country's micro-electronics and IT
sectors. Nanotechnology and nanosciences now represent 23% of the NSTP 2004
budget, for national S&T programs. This represents the largest single
sector, followed by telecommunications at 16%.
The US has developed a high profile, ambitious national strategy known as the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) with a focus on scientific discovery
and institutional capacity building across agencies, universities and
industries. This is certainly the most publicized strategy among OECD countries
with estimated public spending reaching $1 billion by the end of next year and
one that has prompted a major refocusing of national priorities around the
world.
I would note that there has been a significant change in NNI during the last
year. Previously, funding was targeted at building US research capacity. But in
2003 Washington made it very clear that they wanted the research community to
define the grand challenges that US scientists would address including
nanostructured materials, manufacturing, CBRN, instrumentation and metrology,
nanoelectronics, health care, and energy. The new NNI shows how the community
responded with scientific challenges that relate also to economic and social
objectives.
L'académie des sciences et l'académie des technologies en France viennent
de publier un rapport sur l'avenir des nanosciences et les implications pour la
R-D française. Le rapport propose le lancement d'un grand programme
interministériel destiné à positionner la France au premier plan dans le
domaine des nanotechnologies et de leur mise en œuvre au plan industriel.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in the United Kingdom
recently released a report on the progress of the UK's nanotechnology strategy
entitled and I quote "Too little too late" Government Investment in
Nanotechnology" in which the government is taken to task on the lack of
progress against the 2001 Strategy commissioned by then Director General of the
UK Research Council, Sir John Taylor. The report points to missed opportunities
of failing to build on the successes of an early 1980's nanotechnology program;
the inability to concentrate resources into a limited number of world-class
nanotechnology centres i.e. spreading the funding too thinly in nanoportions,
and the slow response of the research community to pick up the challenge of
nanoscience. The Committee concluded that "Government investment in
nanotechnology is at presently insufficient, poorly focused and by no means
guaranteed to produce the overall levels of funding required" to meet the
goals of Taylor Report! They are obviously rethinking their approach in the UK.
Japan has created long term sustaining activities in RIKEN and other
institutes but has also focussed on concentrated niche strategies in areas such
as glass for photonics that have resulted in breakthroughs.
While looking at the industrially developed countries programs we must not
neglect or underestimate the growing interest and capacity building in large
emerging economies, including China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Indeed the
latter has a nanotech strategy underway. I mention this because the competition
- and opportunity for partnerships - will not just be coming from the usual
players but others as well.
One observation that I have made is a strong correlation between the
articulation of a strong and bold national strategy and the increase in funding
for nanotechnologies in all of these countries. We need to keep that in mind.
The US launched NNI in 2000 and by 2003 investment had tripled. It's
interesting that the growth in Japan - which closely watches what the US is
doing - matched their investments. However, the EU's real growth in funding has
only come in the last couple of years.
So how could we best describe the Canadian approach? From my experience and
from my observations today, I would say that it is organic. There are growing
pockets of expertise in various disciplines and multidisciplinary fields across
Canada.
For example, the work of Peter Norton, Rod Taylor, Linda Johnson and Nils
Peterson and their colleagues presented this morning on nanoprobes for
biological sampling and imaging of cells is an example of an ambitious and novel
interdisciplinary research venture to study how cells function and how they are
regulated at the molecular level, involving photonics, biology and chemistry.
I could mention many other exciting developments from other groups described
at this meeting.
The major point is that there is some world leading science in Canada that we
should be proud of and celebrate.
I would also describe the Canadian situation in nanotechnology as young,
dispersed and under-resourced. We do not have a national strategy in
nanotechnology and I'm sure that some in this room would argue that we don't
need one. Indeed, Canada does not have a great track record in developing
focused national technology strategies or initiatives. There are some exceptions
to this rule however such as the decision that biotechnology was a strategic
technology for Canada in the mid 80's which has led to a vibrant biotech sector
in Canada and the creation of Genome Canada, to help bring Canada into the world
of genomics.
The overall trend in Canada has been to allow for the excellence and ideas to
rise up through the system through a multitude of federal and provincial funding
mechanisms, such as NSERC, CIHR (who are co-sponsors of this event), and CFI.
I'm also sure that an equal number of people in this room would lament the lack
of cohesion and coordination among these various mechanisms.
So what is the appropriate balance and approach that works best for Canada?
With that in mind we need to agree on a few fundamentals.
1) At a very high level we have to ask ourselves "What is the vision
that we have as a country for the contributions which science can make to the
economic and social well being of our citizens?" At the present time
(and
of course these may well change) Canada's S&T goals are to develop a 21st
Century Economy and to be one of the most innovative countries in the world. So
the question here is:
How can nanoscience and nanotechnology be an integral part of those goals and
the broad vision?
I would argue that there is a compelling and important story to tell about
what nanoscience and technology can contribute to health care, to industrial
competitiveness, to the environment and to our international stature as a
scientific nation.
But we have not yet told that story.
2) What are the challenges we need to address to realize that vision? I would
suggest that there are at least four strategic challenges.
a. The first is the need for the development of critical mass in key areas
where we can truly be world leaders. This is neither an exclusionary nor
narrowly focused issue but rather one of finding ways that we can build on our
strengths.
b. The second is the need for increased interdisciplinarity. Science at the
nanoscale is intrinsically interdisciplinary. It is at the molecular and
sub-molecular level that chemistry, physics, biology, engineering and
computational sciences intersect. I was taken by Peter Norton's comment this
morning "None of us individually can make much of a contribution". It
is teamwork across interfaces which is needed. But we should ask to what extent
do funding systems and institutional organization of research encourage this to
happen or do they present barriers to it taking place?
c. Ethics, stewardship and responsibility. I had an interesting dilemma a
month ago when I was officially asked to represent Canada in Washington on June
18th in an international discussion of the ethical and moral implications of
nanotechnology. While my priority was to come here because I had already made
the commitment, it is worth noting that we will not progress as a community or
as a society without careful consideration of the potentially serious and
contentious ethical and moral issues associated with exploring the unknown and
the application of new knowledge. The biotechnology community has been
challenged to face these issues and has taken steps to address them.
We must be prepared to do the same. We need to discuss these issues among
ourselves but more importantly with Canadians so that we listen and respond with
rational well considered thinking.
I'm sure that there are many more challenges but I think these need to be top
of mind.
3) My third point is about vision and strategy. As I hinted at earlier it
seems to me that in Canada, unlike in some other countries, the USA, Germany and
more recently France and Holland we have no overall coordinated strategy for
nanoscience and technology which will ensure that we have complementarity of
efforts and effective use of resources across all of the funders, performers and
players on the national and provincial sciences. Certainly Peter Grütter has
done a great job in coordinating the NSERC NIP program and has also played a
role in building the NanoQuebec activities. But there is really no overall
coordination. In the USA for example the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)
established in 2001 is an interagency effort aimed at maximizing the Federal
Government's return on investment in nanoscale R&D by ensuring coordination
of funding, research and infrastructure activities across individual agencies.
NNI fosters cross-disciplinary partnerships and networks, helps funnel
R&D funding for the development of a solid research base, it fosters the
training of researchers in nanoscience and encourages small businesses to
exploit nanotech opportunities.
Is this model or elements of it something that we should adopt in Canada?
Such an initiative might help focus efforts on priorities for nanoscience in
Canada and provide the means to develop an integrated strategic plan for future
funding. Remember that in Genomics, Canada was way behind until two
organizations MRC and NRC put their collective wisdom together, brought other
parties onside and developed a plan through an interim Board of Directors for
Genome Canada.
4) What can we do to address these challenges? It is here that I would like
to hear from you. I would like to get the ball rolling by stating that
partnerships and collaborations are fundamentally important to addressing all
three of these challenges. We need to develop mechanisms and institutional
arrangements that allow us share resources, exchange ideas and develop new
breakthroughs. This means collaborations not just among universities in Canada
but internationally, with government organizations, and particularly with
industry.
So in closing, I would like to say that we should be proud of the remarkable
accomplishments we have made as community over the past few years and how
optimistic I am about Canada's future in this exciting field and the
opportunities that are well within our grasp if we are ready, willing and
prepared to work in collaboration with each other and with others to achieve
them.
Thank you.
|
