The Rural Voice, 1990-03, Page 31Such shifting of responsibility is
a theme that runs through CARTT.
Agriculture Canada is to concentrate
on the type of research that it does
best — long-term research — while
letting the provinces, universities, and
private industry do the rest.
Industry is singled out for special
attention. CARTT says "there is in-
creasing pressure for the private sector
to become more involved in agricul-
tural research ... In the next decade
and beyond, Canadian agriculture will
see private sector research and devel-
opment focusing on new products and
markets ..."
Private investment in research, Dr.
Olson adds, is "relatively small," and
Agriculture Canada wants to see it in-
creased. "In a number of our areas of
technology," he says, "we've reached
the stage where the private sector
should be generating and providing
the technology."
"The private sector is quite capable
of doing the transfer of information
more efficiently and more effectively"
than government, he says.
One way of getting industry to
come on side with research, he adds,
is "to make the point that they have to
carry their own load, that the govern-
ment will not step in and do it for
them. That means that you don't con-
tinually provide government funds to
encourage them."
Dr. Olson stresses that industry is
not being cut off from government
help completely. "The government
will do whatever it can to help ensure
that the technologies which are avail-
able are put in place, but industry has
to carry some of that responsibility."
Nevertheless, a large-scale transfer
of responsibilities from government to
private industry carries some dangers.
In Britain, cost-cutting in the name of
privatization demoralized researchers
as chunk after chunk of their work was
slashed or sold to private interests.
A particularly dramatic example of
this was the sale of the Plant Breeding
Institute (PBI) to Unilever in 1987, a
move that outraged the scientific com-
munity. The PBI was regarded as a
model of co-operation between basic
and applied research, generating £11
million in royalties from the sale of
new plant varieties in 1986. More
importantly, as the British magazine
New Scientist pointed out, after the
sale the country will "have to rely on
a private company, accountable to
nobody except its own board, to take
care of what the government itself
calls 'a unique national resource'."
But it appears that such excesses
are not in the future for Canadian pub-
lic research. Referring to the British
and American efforts at agricultural
research reviews, CARTT says that
"Agriculture Canada will attempt to
learn from these experiences and as
such proposes a more gradual trans-
ition of resources and no closure of
establishments."
In the specific case of public plant
breeding programs, Dr. Olson says,
"Mr. Mazankowski introduced a bill
in the house that made it very clear
there will be no cuts in the breeders.
It has been said now by three ministers
from two different governments from
two different parties."
Dr. Olson adds that public plant
breeding is important in this country
because Canada "depends on a rela-
tively few commodities." "Plant
breeding," he says, "is how we make
sure we retain our national genetic
resources of plant material."
Under Mazankowski's Plant
Breeders' Rights bill, plant breeding
may also serve to bring money back to
the public sector. Under the legisla-
tion, a station that develops a plant
will get a royalty from the sale of the
plant. Sixty per cent of that royalty
will go back to the station, Dr. Olson
says, but the station will have to share
the royalty with other stations that
were involved with the project. And
the money will go back to the station
in general, not the breeding program
specifically, where management will
"portion out that money towards the
overall cost of the operation."
To a farmer, the changing face of
federal agricultural research may not
look any different. No research sta-
tions will be closed, and while some
of the services once provided by the
station may be transferred to private
concerns, most of the changes will
take place within the station.
There will be more co-ordination
of research efforts. Scientists will no
longer be working separately on
projects within their own disciplines,
but will come together to work on one
project. In doing so, they will focus
a range of expertise on one problem,
perhaps coming up with effective
solutions in less time.
And in the new spirit of co-oper-
ation with other players in the research
game, some of the scientists working
in a station may represent private
firms that have contracted to use the
facilities. Similarly, an Agriculture
Canada scientist could seek funding
from a university or even industry.
A slightly more ominous change
will be in the status of the people
working with these multidisciplinary
teams. CARTT says that "more effec-
tive use must be made of extended
term employees, contracts, graduate
students, and postdoctoral fellows."
All of these "employees" are paid
much less than full-time, unionized
employees (graduate students often
refer to themselves as slave labour),
and have much less job security —
there is no guarantee that a contract
or term employee will be re -hired.
In adopting this strategy, however,
Agriculture Canada is following the
lead of the rest of the scientific com-
munity. Term employment has be-
come the rule rather than the excep-
tion in the world of science. Full-time
positions are few and far between.
There will also be some shifts in
research emphasis. Environmental
safety, product safety, integrated pest
management, and biological control
are areas that have been highlighted
by CARTT. There will be more
emphasis on biotechnology as well,
and on some of the new chemistries.
Whether these changes will be
good, bad, or have no significant
effect remains to be seen. The rate of
change has been pegged at only five
per cent per year, so it may be some
time before the full effects are known.
One thing is certain: the amount
of funding for research is not going to
increase. When asked if research will
get more support from the govern-
ment, Olson says he doesn't expect to
see any "significant growth" in the
level of budget support. He also adds
a warning: "I think the government
has sent a very clear, very public
message that we will try to maintain
what we are doing, but the private
sector and the other players better pull
up their socks."0
MARCH 1990 27