Reflections on science advisory systems in Canada

Remi Quirion, Arthur Carty, Paul Dufour and Ramia Jabr
Additional contact information
Remi Quirion: Fonds de recherche du Quebec, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Arthur Carty: University of Waterloo, Canada
Paul Dufour: University of Ottawa, Canada
Ramia Jabr: Fonds de recherche du Quebec, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Palgrave Communications, 2016, vol. 2, issue 1, 1-10

Abstract: Abstract As the evolution of our world has triggered complexity and technological sophistication, it is now essential to consider sound scientific evidence as an integral element of decision-making. Science advisers or chief scientists have to take into account many factors in giving advice. Depending on the nature and level of advice, factors such as the ideology of the governing body, the state of the social, economic and scientific development in the country or region, potential impacts on the health, environment and security of the community, the balance of risk and reward in various options, must all be considered. Canada has lived through a few of these issues in its recent experience with science advice and advisory systems. This article will elaborate on the impact and influence of changes in science advisory bodies at the federal and Quebec government levels and will provide a perspective on their impact. It examines the historical evolution of the advisory apparatus for science throughout Canada’s history and underscores some of their successes and failures under different regimes. The conclusion drawn in this article is that science and science advisory systems in Canada have lacked continuity and a solid foundation thus weakening efforts to enable sound science-based policy into decision-making. The article argues for a more institutionalized and pluralistic approach to ensuring that evidence and science advice can endure—both at the federal and provincial levels. In many ways, the experience with these advisory mechanisms suggests a growing need to ensure sound advice within increasingly complex decision-making as well as a demand by citizens to have scientific evidence considered more carefully in public policy and for the public interest. This article is published as part of a collection on scientific advice to governments.

Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1057/palcomms.2016.48 Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palcom:v:2:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1057_palcomms.2016.48

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/palcomms/about

DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.48

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Palgrave Communications from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().