DISCOVERY INTERVIEW
The nation’s new chief science advisor on creating a new science strategy and Canada’s potential as a world leader
Dr. Mona Nemer, Canada’s new chief science advisor
For the first time in nearly a decade, the federal government has appointed a chief science advisor to help support state science, make it available to the public and ensure scientists have a seat at the table when Canada makes important decisions. Dr. Mona Nemer, who is a cardiovascular scientist and the director of the Molecular Genetics and Cardiac Regeneration Laboratory at the University of Ottawa, was named to the position in September 2017, and reports to the prime minister and Kirsty Duncan, the minister of science. Now, a few months into her new role, Nemer discusses some of her priorities and how Canadian science can do better.
On identifying top priorities
We’re looking at artificial intelligence and its applications to various sectors, particularly at the intersection of technology and society, as well as its legal and ethical aspects. Clearly, the broad topics of environmental sustainability, clean technology and the Arctic are priorities. I think there’s a need for continued Canadian leadership on these fronts, so we must articulate a science and research plan for them over the next few years.
On scientists speaking freely about their work
The government has committed to collaborating with scientists to develop guidelines for communicating with the public about research. I’ll be a part of this process. We’ll start by looking at what’s happening in each department to really understand some of the baselines that need to be put in place. I’m quite hopeful that we’re going to make gains on that front and that we’ll be able to put together a framework where everyone feels comfortable doing science and speaking about science.
On major science infrastructure
One of the things I’m hoping we’ll be able to move on soon is how we manage our large science infrastructure. These are unique facilities that service groups of researchers, who may or may not be physically located there. The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory on Ellesmere Island is a good example of a facility that’s accessible to researchers from all over the country. Sudbury’s SNOLAB is another. We can’t have a crisis every few years because major science infrastructure somewhere has run out of funds. We need a strategy, a more systematic approach to these facilities: who pays for them, how we fund them, how often we
review them and how they are governed are all issues of critical importance if we want to maintain our ability to innovate and to do leading-edge science. Even getting a definition of what constitutes a major science facility is something many scientists would find quite helpful.
On criticism of the federal government’s funding of science
I have spent many years as a practising scientist, so I understand funding. Canada’s Fundamental Science Review [ A comprehensive 2017 report on federal support for fundamental science. —Ed.] has numerous dimensions, and some items were suggested to be included in my work plan. We need to fund the entire spectrum of research. That starts with basic research, not only for the potential of a discovery, but also for the training it offers to talent. I like to say we “learn by doing,” and the best way for a scientist to learn is by conducting research at basic research labs. It’s one of the best internships that scientists can have to prepare them for the job market. I think that once we’ve properly funded basic research, there’s nothing wrong with reaping the benefits of studying fields such as stem cell research and artificial intelligence, which are currently well funded. And I think it’s perfectly appropriate to continue funding them because they involve multiple fields coming together to better society. There’s nothing wrong with making sure that we have the mechanisms and funding schemes to allow this to happen in Canada.
On one of the biggest challenges facing science in Canada
Attracting talent is critical. When I was running my research lab, the most important and time-consuming thing was actually getting talent. Getting the best graduate students, the best technicians, the best collaborators. Of course, you need money to pay them, but money is not the end of things. We have to make sure we keep portraying Canada as a highly competitive and desirable place to come and study, conduct research and innovate, to start innovative companies and so on. Perception is extremely important, but so is reality, because if people come here and are disappointed, then we lose both our credibility and our reputation. “Good” is not good enough. We can be excellent and we should be leaders.