Bill 44 has already been the subject of numerous criticisms. Above all, we denounced the merger of the three research funds into a single Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ). However, less attention has been paid to the nature and extent of the mandate of Quebec’s chief scientist.
Indeed, in its current version, the chief scientist of Quebec would be responsible for advising the government “on any scientific question likely to inform public policies” by formulating “opinions of a scientific nature”, in addition to being president -general director of the FRQ. This accumulation is, in our opinion, a very bad idea, as international experts on this issue have already pointed out.
Indeed, in a text co-signed in 2022 by the leaders of the International Science Council (ISC) and the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA), including the current chief scientist of Quebec, we clearly distinguished two types scientific advice. The first concerns advice on science policy, which focuses on ways to “manage the public research system through funding and infrastructure”. This was the original mandate assigned to Quebec’s chief scientist in 2011 and which is still in force. The very term “chief scientist” was inspired by the case of Israel, which fascinated Minister Clément Gignac at the time. Quebec, however, went further than the Israeli example by also assigning it the task of administering the three Quebec Research Funds.
The other type of scientific advice, not included in the initial mandate of the chief scientist, is to provide “scientific evidence to inform public policy development on a wide range of issues.” At the federal level, in Canada, the chief advisor, Mona Nemer, has the mandate to organize this type of council. But she does not direct the federal granting councils.
A similar position also exists in other states, including New Zealand. On the New Zealand website of the Office of the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister, we take pains to specify that the chief scientific adviser “does not seek to influence operational or funding matters within the scientific system”.
The ISC and INGSA text also specifies that the two roles should not be mixed: public policy advice requires “a set of skills and a broader, pluralist and different approach” from those required for science policy advice, a much narrower role. Indeed, the person who deserves to be listened to on questions of funding methods for science is not necessarily the one who has the knowledge required to advise the government on the protection of caribou…
Independence
Added to this problem of skills is that of the relationship with political power. Still according to the 2022 text, the first principle for a credible scientific council is to preserve “a degree of independence from the political apparatus”. The scientific advisor must have all the latitude to tell uncomfortable truths to decision-makers. As we have noted elsewhere, as an administrator of research support agencies, the chief scientist is very clearly in a relationship of dependence on the various ministries that financially support research.
Bill 44 attempts to resolve this problem by noting that the function must be exercised “with the independence it requires”; rather, we believe that the only way to have such independence is, precisely, not to mix roles.
The centralization of power in the hands of a single person is also a problem. New Zealand has recognized this, and its chief scientific adviser is now supported by a forum of scientific advisers associated with different ministries. The question of disproportionate influence applies a fortiori to a position which combines both types of scientific advice, but also the management of the research funding body.
Ireland attempted this mixing of roles from 2012 to 2022, when the chief scientific adviser also acted as chief executive of Science Foundation Ireland. Following widespread criticism, including from the Royal Irish Academy, the position was split in two.
In short, Ireland, New Zealand and Israel, all states of a size comparable to that of Quebec, have already experimented with roles in the governance of research and scientific policies. Minister Fitzgibbon’s bill appears to have ignored these examples of best practice. There is still time to correct the bill to avoid confusion of roles and conflicts of interest, which can only lead to bad decisions.