The 3^rd Annual Amyot Lecture - "Science and Governance"

Presented by Dr. Kevin Keough, Chief Scientist, Health Canada.

The lecture was presented twice:

Wednesday, October 17, 2001
5:30 p.m.
Theatre of the Canadian Museum of Civilization
100 Laurier Street, Hull, Quebec

Thursday, October 18, 2001
10:00 am
Sir Frederick G. Banting Building
Tunney's Pasture
Ottawa, Ontario

• Speaking Notes for Ian C. Green Deputy Minister of Health
• Speaking Notes for Allan Rock Minister of Health
• Speaking Notes for Dr. Kevin Keough Chief Scientist for Health Canada
• Speaking Notes for Munir A. Sheikh Associate Deputy Minister of Health Canada

Speaking Notes for Ian C. Green

Deputy Minister of Health at the 3rd Annual Amyot Lecture
Hull, Quebec
October 17, 2001

As Delivered

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and thank you for coming.

It's a pleasure to welcome you to the third Annual Amyot Lecture. This is a chance for you to hear from some of the best Canadian thinkers and doers in the field of health research, people who not only live for knowledge and exploration, but who want to better the human condition.

That is, in essence, what these annual lectures are all about.

This series of lectures is presented in memory of my illustrious predecessor, Dr. J.A. Amyot, who became Deputy Minister of Health when the department was created 82 years ago. It focuses attention on important achievements in the field of public health by recognizing excellence, and promoting innovation and debate on health policy issues.

This is the first time that my colleague, Munir Sheikh, the New Associate Deputy Minister of Health, and I have had the opportunity to attend the Amyot Lecture. We are both very much looking forward to the event.

In a moment, I will turn the microphone over to the Minister of Health, Allan Rock, to introduce you to Dr. Kevin Keough, our honoured guest and speaker for this year. But I want to say just a few quick words, if I may.

Given the theme of the today's lecture, "Science and Governance," it strikes me as fitting that we should be gathered here at the Museum of Civilization.

For clearly, both science and governance are the hallmarks of the civilized society.

In a climate of uncertainty such as that we have been living in for the past five weeks, people look for explanations from their governments and from researchers. They count on them to protect and reassure them, and to provide them with leadership.

Even in ordinary times, however, the relationship between science and governance is the very foundation of civilization.

As Dr. Keough promises to explain in his lecture, scientific endeavour has, throughout history, supported the obligation of government towards the public good.

The generation of knowledge has profound value for its own sake. In its application, however, it has the potential to inform and refine government policies, regulations and practices.

Today, for example, governments use science to protect the public by applying the best available research evidence to manage risks to health and safety, or to the environment or public security.

It was our department's Science Advisory Board that first recommended to our Minister the creation of the Office of the Chief Scientist. They saw it as a way to foster greater leadership, coherence and expertise in the overall strategic direction of Health Canada's scientific responsibilities.

The Minister agreed and we appointed the Chief Scientist in January of this year.

The Office of the Chief Scientist will champion science both within and outside Health Canada, and Dr. Keough will ensure the department continues a very high quality of health science research by forging links among scientists here at Health Canada, across the country and around the world.

Your presence here today is a strong endorsement of the inclusive approach Health Canada is taking to knowledge development, an approach which acknowledges that our health care system belongs to Canadians and that all sectors have a stake in ensuring its sustainability.

I hope you will continue to support Health Canada by attending our lectures, by challenging our policies - at least occasionally - and by sharing your insights and expertise with us on an ongoing basis.

Without further ado, I would like to turn the microphone over to my Minister, Allan Rock.

Thank you.

Speaking Notes for Allan Rock

Minister of Health at the
3rd Annual Amyot Lecture

October 18, 2001
Hull, Quebec

Thank you, Ian.

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the 3rd Annual Amyot Lecture, a series that began two years ago with the inaugural presentation by our own Dr. Bob McMurtry. It was a very impressive "tour de force" indeed.

That was followed last year by Dr. David Naylor's lecture on evidence-based medicine. It was memorable for its impact - its practical impact on those of us involved with the Canadian health care system.

The prestige and lustre of this lecture series, a series which is still very young, are already growing, primarily as a result of the quality of the lectures delivered to date. We have no doubt that standard of excellence will be equalled again tonight by Dr. Kevin Keough.

I am particularly delighted that we have among us, the Honourable David Dingwall, who formally held the office of Minister of Health and served with such distinction, tackling difficult issues with his usual courage, determination and success.

It's a pleasure to see you again, David. Thank you for being here.

I'm also very happy that my colleague and friend Julie Bettney, Minister of Health for Newfoundland and Labrador is here.

Julie recently hosted the annual meeting of all Canadian Ministers of Health. That was quite a sight to see. Julie was a tremendous hostess. We thoroughly enjoyed the three days we spent in St. John's.
I am delighted you were able to join us here tonight, Julie. Thank you.

The topic "Science and Governance" brings together two concepts that I have developed some familiarity with in recent years. You see, I have spent almost eight full years in public life in Ottawa. My first four years were spent in entirely different company. I was the Attorney General and federal Minister of Justice, so I hung out regularly with literally thousands of lawyers. I felt very much at home. The law used to be my life.

In the last four years, I have spent an inordinate amount of time with scientists and, I must say, they have tolerated it very well. But one thing I have learned from my association with scientists is that they do think those of us involved in governance - at least politicians - are from a different world: say aliens, for example.

Now, I do my best on every occasion that I can find to disabuse them of this notion, and to point out and to emphasize the links between our worlds, because, of course, there are similarities.

Scientists, of course, have developed and rely heavily upon a process of peer review. It is no surprise that politicians have peer review as well. Every four years we go through the most rigorous peer review imaginable.

Dr. Keough's presentation this evening will explain why it is so important to maintain productive links between the sciences and governance.

The Prime Minister has been a conspicuous advocate for strengthening our country's science capacity through the creation of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation; by increasing revenues for the granting councils; by funding the GENOME project; by creating the Chairs of Excellence; and by setting the goal to double our government's investment in research within 10 years. The Prime Minister has signaled that science and our scientific capacity are crucial to our economic and our social future.

As federal Minister of Health I am particularly proud of the Prime Minister's leadership, as his government created the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR). I am very happy to see among those present tonight for Dr. Keough's lecture, the president of CIHR, Dr. Alan Bernstein.

Thank you for coming this evening Alan.

The already world-renowned Canadian Institutes of Health Research speak volumes about our commitment. There are now 13 of them and they work in all fields, including molecular biology, health systems, the well-being of the population and genetics.

Each Institute is made up of a complex network of partners from all parts of Canada, from the public and private sectors, and - this is essential - from all disciplines.

Our guest speaker tonight - our lecturer for this 3rd Amyot Lecture - is one of the founding forces behind CIHR. In his capacity as Vice-President for Research and International Relations at Memorial University of Newfoundland, he worked tirelessly within the research community to advance and develop the concept of the institutes and then - no small task - to persuade government to support them.

Dr. Keough holds a PhD. in Biochemistry from the University of Toronto. He has served with distinction as a professor at his university. Throughout his career, there has always been an element of public service in everything that he has done.

He serves as Deputy Chair for an External National Advisory Committee to the government on science and technology issues. He is a former Executive Member of the Medical Research Council. He is a founding member of the Board of Directors of GENOME Canada.

Speaking Notes for Dr. Kevin Keough

Chief Scientist for Health Canada
at the 3rd Annual Amyot Lecture

October 17, 2001
Hull, Quebec

As Delivered

It is a great honour to be invited to present the third Amyot Lecture. It is a distinct pleasure to be able to speak to you on a topic that I believe is central to good governance, that is, how science informs the decisions of government. This topic is underscored in how Dr. Amyot approached his work in the service of the public health of this country.

Amyot was a physician and surgeon, distinguished as a practitioner and university lecturer. He also served the country with distinction in our medical services overseas during the First World War. But, above all, Amyot was devoted to, if not downright fanatical about, the public health of Canadians. At the first Canadian conference on medical services held in 1925, he noted in his remarks that "Since 1900, I have spent every hour of the twenty-four thinking of public health." His promotion of water filtration and chlorination, and milk pasteurization saved innumerable lives.

Amyot's persistent drive for better public health was based on sound science, and he was proud of his own contributions to that science. At that first conference he also noted "Public health, that branch of medicine which looks towards the prevention of disease, has made immense progress in the last few years since we have had certain scientific facts upon which we can base our action." This brings us to the topic I have chosen to speak about tonight.

For millennia rulers and governments have called upon wise men who understood (or were thought to understand) the dynamics of the natural world and its social implications to advise them on the creation of policy and laws, and on decisions of national importance. In some cases these advisers were little more than soothsayers whose advice was founded more in superstition than in science. In other cases, advisers were individuals who were rigorous in their analysis and logic. Here I think of Aristotle, who was the science adviser to Alexander the Great.

I gather that while Alexander appreciated Aristotle's advice related to natural history, he was not so sure about Aristotle's political advice! Clearly, science advice in governance has a long tradition.

As the pace of scientific discoveries escalated, so too did the impact of science on states and their peoples. Continual improvement in time keeping, the discovery of gunpowder, the discovery of the laws of mechanics, the invention of the steam engine, and the discovery of the cause of infectious disease -- these and other advances changed peoples' lives and the rules under which they were governed.

By the15th century, universities in Europe had become an important source of science advice for government. For example, Isabella of Spain relied heavily on the faculty of the University of Salamanca for advice on scientific issues. Isabella consulted the faculty on Columbus' proposition that he could reach the Orient by sailing west.

The faculty took the position that: they knew the world was round; they had determined that Columbus would never be able to sail that far; so they "advised" Isabella not to fund the voyage. This may have been the original " you can't get there from here" response. As the story was told to me by colleagues in Salamanca, it was a merchant courtier who convinced Isabella to fund the voyage, arguing that she had little to lose. If Columbus disappeared, she would lose only a small financial stake, but if he made it to the Orient there were great opportunities for trade. You may be thinking "so much for that bit of science advice"... but you know, the faculty were right. Columbus never did get to the Orient.

As early as the 17th century there were government sponsored science works. Charles II created the Greenwich Observatory and the position of Astronomer Royal, whose role was to perform science. Unfortunately, that role didn't always include providing science advice -- the Astronomer Royal was at times discouraged from "speaking his mind".

By the 17th century a new source of sound independent science advice became available to governments with the creation of learned societies such as the Royal Society in Britain (1660) and the Académie des sciences in France (1666). Other countries followed - prominent among them was the United States where Lincoln created the National Academy of Science in 1863. From their inception these bodies have been a source of science advice for governments although only the American Academy of Sciences was created specifically for that purpose. These academies continue to play an important role as champions for science within their countries and as external "science" advisors to governments on critical issues of public interest.

Until the 20th century scientific advice to government came primarily from outside the public service. The Second World War changed that situation irrevocably. Governments came to realize that they needed to be involved in performing the science and technology required to meet national objectives. The success of major science projects undertaken to support the war effort set the stage for a build up of government science capacity in the last half of the 20th century. This capacity enabled many national governments to become major performers of science. It also enabled government scientists to play a major, if not predominant, role in providing the science advice used to inform governance.

Advances in science and technology since World War II have completely reshaped social and economic structures. National governments now function in a global, knowledge-based economy and society. Scientific advances and new technologies pervade our lives; they increasingly influence our health and safety, and the environments in which we live. They have re-defined our understanding of the physical, biological and social processes that affect human health and the environment. As the 20th century was an age of physics and chemistry, the 21^st century will undoubtedly be an age of biology, where the understanding of biological molecules, living organisms and ecosystems, and the application of technology associated with them, will change our lives immeasurably. Biotechnology will allow us to use animal cells and bacteria to produce new molecules for therapeutic use. It could allow for the production of "designer organisms" that could be put to both good and evil use -- a panacea or Pandora's Box?. Applying information technology to our improved understanding of biosystems will profoundly influence activities as diverse as pharmacology and the management of fish stocks. Science and technology have contributed to a modern transportation system that presents both benefits and challenges -- it allows us to move therapeutic agents to those in need far faster than in the past, but at the same time it allows people who may carry infection to move around quickly and, knowingly or unknowingly, spread disease.

Science is not only fundamental to human and ecosystem health; it is the core of our national innovation system. Science is critical to our international competitiveness in the global economy where ideas and knowledge are common currency. Good science is good economics. Countries with transparent advisory processes based on sound science are better positioned in international trade negotiations, particularly in cases where science is central to non-tariff trade issues. And, the government "seal of approval" is likely to be increasingly important for the market success of new, technology-intensive products. Consumers look to government regulators to use science in making decisions about a product's safety. In the 21^st century governments strive for balance between their stewardship responsibilities and their innovation goals. In addition to using science to ensure the health and safety of citizens and their environment, governments must also ensure that science is used to foster commercial development of benefit to society. Governments that can achieve this balance will engender both public confidence and a vibrant business environment.

Advances in science, and the need for governments and individuals to accommodate them, will continue to accelerate. There are very few areas of government policy and decision-making that are not affected by science. The requirement for sound science advice to ensure good governance has never been greater. As the 21st century ushers in the biological revolution, governments, more than ever, must be able to respond in an informed and nimble way to matters of national interest. This means that they must be able to perform and harness science for the public good. In the ferment of biotechnology, nanotechnology and climate change, good science will be essential for government effectiveness. But science alone does not provide the solutions needed in governance.

Science is but one of a number of important voices that must be heard. It is increasingly critical to good governance, but rarely sufficient. Decision-makers in government must consider a range of inputs and consult advisors competent in many aspects of public policy.

Economic factors, social and political considerations and public activism should, and do, influence policy and regulatory decisions. At times, they overtake scientific advice. Decision-makers must exercise their legitimate role in weighing these inputs. Einstein was once asked why people could discover atoms but not the means to control them. He replied: "That is simple, my friend, because politics is more difficult than physics".

In our fervour to respond to the challenges and capitalize on the opportunities afforded by advancements in science, we must not lose sight of the diversity of inputs and advisors needed for good governance.

The Government of Canada has recognized that science is one of the most powerful tools it has to make sound decisions in an increasingly complex world. Based upon the recommendations of the Council of Science and Technology Advisors, an independent advisory group, the Government has adopted a Framework for Science and Technology Advice. It provides a series of six principles and operational guides for the effective use of science and technology advice in government decision making.

• Early Identification -- anticipating key issues arising from advances in knowledge;

• Inclusiveness - ensuring that advice is drawn from a variety of sources and disciplines to capture the full diversity of challenges and opportunities, and scientific thought and opinion. To be effective, this process must draw upon the necessary range of expertise, regardless of whether it resides in government, in Canadian academe or industry, or internationally.

• Sound Science and Science Advice - applying due diligence to ensure the quality, integrity and objectivity of the science and science advice .

• Uncertainty and Risk - requiring explicit recognition and communication of scientific uncertainty and risk.

• Transparency and Openness - open discussion of scientific problems and experts' opinions and transparent and easy access to the science and the advisory process.

• Review - reviewing decisions based on scientific arguments to ensure that they reflect the most recent knowledge.

A recent report of the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) of the European Commission referred to these principles as "the six commandments of the CSTA" because they provide explicit, formal operational guidance on how science advice should be sought and applied for good governance.

Let me share with you my definition of science. For me science includes the full spectrum of activities - from the generation of new knowledge to its many applications. It includes the systematic examination of the natural and social elements of our world, and the translation of the knowledge gained beyond the confines of science itself. In turn, my understanding of governance embraces all the activities of government that affect society such as the formulation of policies and regulations, the development of advice for citizens, and the passage of laws.

The goal of governments and scientists should be to integrate sound science and sound governance. Science must be applied in a manner that is accountable, transparent, thorough, impartial and credible, and which will help focus the policy debate on the substance of the issues. This includes providing quality information, presented in a useable fashion, on what we know, what we do not know, and the extent of the uncertainties and risks involved in various alternatives.

It is important to bring science and science advice to the table early in the policy development process. In the words of the French mathematician Poincaré: "Science is built with facts as a house is with stone. But a collection of facts is no more a science that a heap of stones is a house."

To build a house from an accumulation of stone you need a craftsman - a stone mason. The stone mason will know how to assemble the stone so that the house will withstand the loads imposed on it. The same can be said for the accumulation of scientific facts - it takes a craftsman, in this case a scientist, to interpret and sort through the facts to create a credible scientific structure that will withstand scientific and public scrutiny.

Science advisors need to be involved in identifying and assessing policy options (from a science perspective) to maintain the integrity of the science advice throughout the development of policy.

Government requires science to:

• support decision-making, policy development and regulations;
• develop and manage standards;
• support public health, safety, environment and defence needs; and,
• enable economic and social development

But , where does government get the science it needs?

Good governance requires scientists with the ability and credentials to generate and translate scientific findings into sound science advice. In some cases these scientists will be employed within government; in others they will not.

Government is no longer the primary performer of research and development in Canada (at present, governments perform 13% of research and development in Canada -- this is comparable to the US and OECD averages). Over the past two decades universities and industry have developed strong research capabilities --approximately 62 percent of total research and development is performed by the private sector, and universities perform 25 percent of total research and development. For much of the science and technology required by government, decision makers can fund work in universities, contract to industry and increasingly, access knowledge generated in research institutes in Canada and abroad.

As the cost, complexity and pace of advancements in science escalate, individual organizations no longer have the resources or expertise to "go it alone". We need to find new ways to partner -- to bring together multi-disciplinary teams of scientists from across the innovation system. We need new ways to combine their intellectual, financial and physical resources in conducting the science required to better understand the complex, interconnected world in which we live.

Government scientists must be as good and as current as their external colleagues in order to form and contribute to these partnerships. In turn, government must have the in-house capacity required to assimilate, interpret and extrapolate the knowledge obtained through these partnerships into the framework of governance. As a starting point, to improve partnerships and to improve government's "absorptive capacity for science", I believe that the government should foster the interchange of scientists between with government, academe and the private sector. A freer flow of scientists will enhance the quality of science advice to government, maximize the contribution of Canadian scientists to the national system of innovation, and renew the science base in all sectors.

It is also important to look beyond our national borders -- the processes of science are international. Let me return to the University of Salamanca. As one of the oldest European universities, Salamanca emerged after the severe intellectual restrictions that prevailed during the Dark Ages. As intellectual life and scientific activity resumed, scholars in European universities, such as the University of Salamanca, had a lot of catching up to do. They did so by drawing on the advances that had continued in other parts of the world, particularly those achieved by Islamic scholars and scientists during the 11^th and 12^th centuries. We must continue to look outward and to take an inclusive approach to science and science advice. Today, many of the scientific questions that arise in governance are of similar concern to countries around the world. All governments need to look more to international partnerships for the generation of new knowledge. Joint research is feasible and cost-effective. Clearly, the analysis, interpretation and application of that research will need to be informed by our national perspectives and values.

Government cannot obtain all of the science, and especially the science advice, that it needs in a timely fashion from sources outside government.

Academe, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations, which can supply outside advice, have philosophies and priorities that are not always compatible with government agendas and requirements for science. And there are times when the government must perform and lead science that is of strategic national importance. When that science and technology cannot be effectively or efficiently obtained from outside of government, the government needs a strategic in-house capacity to conduct first-rate science. This view has also been enunciated by the Council of Science and Technology Advisors.

The key is to ensure the quality, integrity and objectivity of the science and the science advice regardless of its source. Science and technology performed and used by government must be excellent. To perform excellent science, and to distill it into excellent advice, government must maintain a foundation for scientific excellence. This includes: dynamic and knowledgeable scientists; scientific equipment and facilities capable of supporting leading edge science; predictable, ongoing financial resources; and, an environment that offers the opportunity to conduct challenging science and work with the world's best scientists. If you think that the cost of doing good science is high, think about the cost of not doing it. To assure excellence, scientists, decision-makers and the public require validation that data and analyses are first rate. This can best be achieved through expert review by peers and stakeholders.

Innovation is the touchstone of progress in science. We must be open to new, as well as conventional, ways of interpreting our observations. The scientific method ensures that progress in science is deliberate and well-reasoned. This is fundamental to the development of a credible body of scientific knowledge. Scientific revolutions often come about through radical changes such as the paradigm shift that came with understanding the structure of DNA.

Somehow we have to balance a stable scientific process of checks and balances with a system that encourages, and is receptive to, these scientific revolutions. Peer review -- the test of convincing peers that your view should prevail -- has served us well over the years. It has often prevented us from travelling down unproductive paths. But, if conservatism leads to bias or lack of openness to new ideas, the core value of innovation that drives the progress of science can be lost.

We need to recognize that absolute certainties in science are rare. Most of you may remember the science experiments of high school where you set out an objective and carried out an experiment to "prove" your assumption right. It usually worked if you performed it correctly, and you were certain that the original assumption was correct. But practical science does not work that way. The process of science involves continual questioning of the assumed "truth". The more that an explanation stands up to new facts, the more scientists become convinced of the validity of that explanation.

Regardless, scientists need to communicate uncertainty in science. We need to recognize that in science there can be more than one legitimate set of conclusions drawn from the same facts -- just as in the house analogy where one could make different houses from the same pile of stones. In science, however, the number of options typically narrows as more information becomes available. Scientists must make clear to decision makers when alternate explanations for observed facts exist or where there is not a consensus on the science. Science advisors may express a preferred interpretation, but they should be clear if it is not the only one. Otherwise, they have failed to provide the best science advice. In turn, decision makers need to take these factors into account in reaching decisions.

When one has only one fact, one has no choice but to base interpretations on it. When one has many facts, one has to incorporate them all to yield the best explanation of a phenomenon.

Science advice needs to be formulated in a way that not only accepts and adapts to new facts, but also anticipates and welcomes them.

Disparate views may exist. They can sometimes be reconciled or a consensus view reached by seeking science advice widely -- from expert panels, advisory boards, or other mechanisms such as consensus conferences. Unfortunately, decisions in government may have to be taken in times of public crisis, which does not allow for a contemplative pace to reach scientific and stakeholder consensus. Sometimes we cannot wait for what Pericles called the wisest of all counselors -- time -- so we go with the best we have. But I believe that we should revisit these decisions. Uncertainty in the science and thus uncertainty in advice should alert us to the need for review.

There is an unfortunate tendency for us to ascribe "blame" when advice, and subsequent actions taken, turn out to be wrong in hindsight.

Most often, negligence is not to cause, and "blame" is not warranted. However, the prospect that advice may be second guessed at some point in the future may inhibit the provision of "best available" advice today. This underscores once again, the importance of communicating what science can and cannot tell us about issues. Certainly a cautious approach to science advice and decision making is essential. But precaution should not translate into paralysis.

This points to the importance of the relationship between scientists and policy makers. In the past these two communities have often worked in separate solitudes, comfortable with the patterns associated with their professions. This is not a new challenge.

In the 1860s Louis Pasteur invented pasteurization. Because his ideas were revolutionary, they were adopted slowly. The idea of pasteurizing milk didn't arrive in North America until the 1880s -- even then, it took another 30 years to find its place in policy.

Acceptance in the U.S. came about largely due to the efforts of Nathan Strauss, co-owner of Macy's department store, who was taken by the theoretical benefits of pasteurization. Strauss overcame the resistance of politicians, milk producers and the public by demonstrating that the pasteurization process dramatically reduced the diseases and deaths resulting from raw milk consumption. He accomplished this by providing subsidized and free pasteurized milk to the people of New York City. In Canada, it was our own John Andrew Amyot who took a lead in introducing the pasteurization of milk. Here is a case where the scientists and the policy makers failed to achieve a good outcome when they worked in isolation, but succeeded when the science and policy worked in tandem.

Today, almost all policy issues either affect, or are affected by, science and technology. It is more important than ever for governments to ensure a strong and productive bond between science and policy. Our reward will be better policies and stronger political and public confidence in those policies.

Let me speak about the challenges:

• science cannot always produce the facts and answers in the time frames needed by policy makers;

• those involved in policy development and decision making often seek precision and certainty - while well-established science can sometimes approach the precision, it can never deliver certainty;

• scientific development and validation is typically achieved through broad dissemination and challenge from peers whereas policy, at least historically within a Westminster model of government, tends to be developed from internal sources; and,

• scientists often become frustrated when policies and government decisions are not consistent with their science and science advice, while policy makers wrestle with how to balance a diversity of inputs and advice.

Only through ongoing dialogue will these challenges be overcome -- scientists and policy makers need to gain a better appreciation of their respective roles and the processes and tools they use to fulfill them.

I would suggest some guidelines for this dialogue: Scientists must provide their best scientific judgement and advice, even when significant uncertainty and controversy exists. They must also clearly distinguish scientific fact from judgement and advice. In turn, policy makers must ensure that scientists are involved in policy formulation throughout the process to maintain the integrity of the science advice.

Communication between scientists and policy makers is key. Not only must we speak clearly, we must listen intently. Not only must we think of what we say, but what others hear.

The government needs to equip itself to secure and use the best science advice. It should attract and support high calibre scientists, both within and outside of government. It should subject its science and advice to the test of scrutiny by peers and comment from stakeholders. Sound science and science advice are critical to the government's ability to address the science-related opportunities and challenges that dominate our economy and society. Controversies will continue to arise, but broad application of principles such as inclusiveness, openness and transparency, excellence, and review, will contribute to enhanced confidence among government decision makers and the public that the best science is being used to guide government decisions.

I will finish with a another quote from Amyot. He was referring, not suprisingly, to public health but the comment applies to all areas of science and governance: "The public has demanded men who knew more and who could spend more time on public health than it ever did before." He speaks to us yet today. We must respond.

Thank you.

Speaking Notes for Munir A. Sheikh

Associate Deputy Minister of Health Canada at the
3rd Annual Amyot Lecture

October 17 and 18, 2001
Hull, Quebec

As Delivered

As Ian Green mentioned, this is my first annual lecture and so is it Ian's.

I come to Health Canada with a background in economics and taxation. And sitting there in that chair, I thought of myself as a student listening to my science professor. The question that came to my mind before Dr. Keough stood up was -- am I going to understand what he is going to say?

At the end of it, I came to the conclusion that I had understood everything he said. I should mention that the quality of the dialogue in this day and age, between scientists and other policy makers, is definitely a lot better than it was 2,000 years ago.

I thoroughly enjoyed what I heard, and I must say, I learned quite a lot sitting in that chair.

Dr. Keough, I would like to thank you for your clean, straight-forward and motivational message on the importance of science.

I'm sure you would agree that Dr. Keough's speech was full of many ideas. I'd like to briefly talk about just three of his key messages.

First, Dr. Keough told us that science is vital to human development. To put that in my own words, science is what separates us from the stone age. Just think where we would be without science.

A good example of this is the microphone, now available without any cables.

Second, Dr. Keough notes that science is good economics. There is absolutely no doubt about that. As an economist, let me add, however, that the reverse is true as well -- economics is also good science. As an example, economists have always argued that the market doesn't work for the right level of production of science. And it's for this reason that governments provide considerable support to increase the level of scientific understanding in any country.

Having come from a background of economics and taxation, I know that's why the level of tax assistance provided by the Government of Canada for scientific research and experimental development in Canada, is the largest among the G-7 countries.

Third, in order to develop a solid policy that is beneficial to the welfare of Canadians, we must examine the interdependence between strong science and other aspects of policy.

Dr. Keough correctly points out that this is a very important role for the government.

To Dr. Keough, the idea that science is key to human development, and that the government has a key role to play in science are absolutely important ideas.

So let me thank you once again for sharing these ideas with us. I'd like to take this opportunity to offer my personal thanks for providing me with my very first lecture on science.

Now, as a token of appreciation I would like to present to you a very small gift on behalf of the Minister and the Department of Health.

Thank you.