|
|
|
|
Science-Based Economic Development edited by Susan Raymond
Geraldine A Kenney Wallace
Joseph L. Rotman Centre for Management
Warren C. Bull
Executive Director,
NeuroScience Network
A Prologue to Partnerships and Capacity-Building Through S&T
Over the past decade in Canada a major experiment in innovation has been quietly evolving, the end objectives of which are to build a new and different capacity in the intellectual and economic life of a country both blessed and trapped in its natural resources.
To this point, the experiment has shown positive results as a public policy vehicle to assist the gradual economic and attitudinal transition from sole reliance on a resource-based industry into the knowledge-based economy and value-added resources strategy.
However successful now, the resulting partnerships between government, industry and universities were not borne easily at the beginning. Partnerships offer both solutions and unexpected challenges of different dimensions, as various initial motivations, and changing economic and social conditions, demand a leadership role that requires evolving multiple personae. Whether entrepreneur, diplomat, politician, consensus maker, intellectual, or banker, the range of skills each partnership requires is broad. Thus the clarification of roles and authority in decision making becomes as important as the goals and objectives of the actual enterprise the partners have set up.
This paper briefly reviews the major motivations behind the networks established in Canada and the results to date as an example of how partnerships for science-based development can emerge in industrialized and developing countries, with whom international collaborations for such activity can be catalyzed through (for example) World Bank, ODA, and UNESCO support to build capacity and develop human resources with desirable technological expertise.
Abundant natural resources led Canada to develop a prosperous postwar economy, and by the 1960s, an extensive series of social programs for health, education, and unemployment were in place coast to coast, supported by this resources-based economy and export of raw materials. Immigrants flocked to Canada, education expanded rapidly, and science and technology investments grew. But S&T was dominated by the government laboratories, in particular. Little private sector presence in R&D was evident, with clear exceptions in the space, chemicals, and telecommunication sectors. Thus, little private-sector capacity existed to receive the results of R&D for the technology-driven market place in comparison to other industrialized nations, 1, 2
By the mid-1980s, it was clear that not only were natural resources facing fierce competition from other parts of the world, but commodity prices were in a steady decline,3 and new technologies had shifted demand, e.g., fiber optics was a threat to copper, and biotechnology was leading to enhanced crop production in countries previously dependent on Canadian agricultural produce. Technology and regulatory, global, and trading forces had removed the option called "status quo."
Superimposed upon this mature and restructuring industrial landscape was a much younger, smaller technology-driven and knowledge-based economy. The goal of the science and technology policies and S&T infrastructure was to add value to the science base and to accelerate the high-technology sector, which was in a major trade deficit. 3, 4 For a trading nation heavily dependent on exports, government policies began to emphasize trade and competitiveness issues. The industries sought R&D tax credits to mitigate the risks of research.3 By 1985, Canada invested 1.3 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) in expenditures for research and development (GERD) in comparison to high technology countries such as the U.S. and Japan, whose GERD was well over 2.5 percent. 4, 5 Whereas then Canada comprised about 2 percent of world population and about 3 percent of world trade, Canadian researchers performed about 4 percent of the world's basic research. In principle, Canada should have been leading in creating technology companies on a comparative basis. The transmission of R&D, however, found few receptors in Canada ready to commercialize the results.
Therein lay the paradox. 5 The Canadian economy, standard of living, and intrinsic capacity to publicly support health, education, and social security through wealth ,generation and the tax system were under severe stress. The investments in R&D were not leading to the anticipated spillover into the market and the economic and social well-being of the country. To a large measure, there were three major reasons or this. There was no political will at the highest level of decision making to focus on R&D, nor a "science culture" in the public at large. There was too little capacity in the private sector in many important areas of the economy to receive R&D results strategically and to hire graduating scientists and engineers (who left in a rain drain). There was too much dependence on R&D in government laboratories as a result, and for the most part this was uncoupled from the productive sector of the economy. These historic conditions have also paralleled those in other resource based economies, large or small. While the issues may be the same, the pathways open to solutions can vary. In Canada, the role of the private sector was pivotal to success. Partnerships were the point of departure for new policies.
Policy Initiatives Towards S&T Competitiveness
Canada has a "transmitter-receiver" problem in R&D. 5 Furthermore, an analysis of the health of the science and technology infrastructure in 1984 by the Science Council of Canada, 6 contrary to a widely held opinion that there was far too little support, proved there was a considerable amount. However, the older existing infrastructure was not matched to the then S&T needs of the day, and thus it was not delivering value to the public or private investment. Too few firms could absorb R&D, or held world-product mandates to commission R&D.
Clearly it was time for a radical rethinking of how to take ideas from the laboratory into the market place. The challenge was to devise a twin policy strategy—of intellectual competitiveness coupled to economic competitiveness—that would produce clear results over a reasonable time scale for a significant investment in people and R&D expertise. This had to be accomplished without losing the pursuit of research excellence and the results of serendipity, but with the introduction of demand, discipline, and entrepreneurship for science-based innovation and technology-based business. The role of the universities in a world economy was pivotal. 7 As often happens, the need for radical rethinking often occurs simultaneously to different sectors in society, who see the same major problems, but from different perspectives. If this is the case, sudden recognition of common ground can often be the impetus for faster consensus decisions and action. In the summer of 1986, the first meetings of the newly established Premier's Council in Ontario proved to be a forum for such action. Furthermore, the strong free-trade direction that was emerging with the U.S. and which culminated in the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, highlighted the need for proactive but less directly interventionist public policies. Strategic investments in precompetitive R&D, as incentives for private sector partnerships, could not be (nor be perceived as) subsidies to the private sector.
A "blue-ribbon" advisory group comprising some twenty individuals recognized as leaders in business, finance, R&D, labor, and education was challenged by the premier with his senior cabinet members to make Ontario "internationally competitive" for the twenty-first century, with a ten year horizon and up to a total $1 billion investment. Emerging from their multiple advice came several initiatives. 8 One was the first Centres of Excellence open competition in 1987, which was subject to rigorous international peer review. The seven centre winners became the historical players in what was a new set of intellectual research and business partnerships that would dramatically change their paradigm for research and cooperation. A decade later, the investment of over $350 million has led to enhanced research facilities and research excellence, impressive records of technology transfer, numerous patents and spinoff firms, generations of researchers imbued with the idea and practicalities of collaborative partnerships, and a showcase for international trade missions and visitors which three successive governments have been pleased to promote at home and abroad. 9
The role of private citizens, with extensive experience and expertise, in developing policy advice for the cabinet was a unique event, but one gradually emulated across Canada 4 through the establishment of several premier's advisory groups. By 1996, many of these change-making advisory groups had evolved into new types of governance groups, had dissolved after accomplishing their initial goals, or had disappeared with a change of provincial government. However, it is quite clear that without the political will to address these issues, and the "real world" experience and pressure brought to bear on the issues by these blue-ribbon groups, the old paradigms would be firmly in place.
Parallel to these Ontario activities in 1986 was a series of federal S&T initiatives. For many years, strong arguments had been made that unless the prime minister himself showed leadership in promoting initiatives for economic renewal, with S&T as a key strategy to build the knowledge-based economy, Canada would never develop its full potential and overcome its (by now) overreliance on the fortunes of the natural resource base and its high-technology trade deficits. Danger signals had been evident for over a decade, and regional "redistribution of wealth" programs as a proxy for trade were merely delaying the inevitable need for a fundamental restructuring of the economy. 1, 2, 4, 5,
The idea of a National Advisory Board on Science and Technology to be chaired by the prime minister was finally accepted in 1986, and the 1987 founding membership was to be drawn from across Canada with leading business CEOs, labor and academic leaders, with presidents of R&D institutions playing an ex-officio role. Once again, building on earlier work, the issues of government and academic-industry linkages in R&D, in the context of wealth creation, quickly became a national priority. 3, 10 Drawing upon the board's expertise, and the impetus arising from the coincidence of three members having also served on the first Premier's Council, a pan-Canadian Network of Centres of Excellence (NCE) program was approved in principle in 1987 and launched as an open competition in 1988-89. Rigorous peer-review competition, where excellence was matched to clearly articulated industrial needs, overrode the usual regional industrial expansion and distribution programs in place to support the private sector.
The Clash of our Past and Future
The NCEs were created in 1989, but not without opposition from people in many quarters who saw new programs as a threat to existing resource allocations to research and a "black hole" to the traditional independence of researchers, who were not to be "managed." To the contrary, in the absence of NCE (for which new funds were committed in times of very tight fiscal constraint), it was doubtful that any new R&D funds would have been forthcoming to the existing research base. Given the 1991-93 recession and universal cutbacks, it is notable that of the original fifteen NCEs, ten have survived substantive review for a phase two support, four new ones have been created, and again the results and deliverables make a very impressive story for leveraged $500 million public investment with private-public sector partnerships. 9
The NeuroScience Network is one of the original fifteen successful networks and is now in its seventh year of operation. The remainder of this article will focus on the results of this major public policy initiative and recount lessons learned in these novel types of partnerships. Funds were invested in people and projects with potential to accelerate the building of a knowledge-based economy. The government created a climate of catalytic activity to ensure that the scientific goals, technology transfer, and longer-range market objectives were thought out by the partners during the deliberative process of preparing the proposal for the competition. For the successful centres, the government also negotiated the conditions of cash flow afterwards. Building a basis of trust and an understanding of mutual objectives, as well as time scales necessary to accomplish these goals, is the common ground upon which all good partnerships must begin.
Managing the partnerships is an evolving art, when the scientists and engineers are in universities, industries, and sometimes government laboratories scattered across a geography that embraces four-and-a-half time zones and, according to the United Nations, the most "multicultural population" in the world. These issues are familiar but seldom coped with in a virtual "Centre of Excellence" which is in reality a human and electronic network with the dimensions of the country but a single research focus. The impact of information technologies on the ability of this network to coordinate and build its capacity has been a critical ingredient of success.
In a changing world of specialization, technology, and outsourcing, how does one maintain focus, manage the networks, and leverage limited resources? How does one manage scientific capability when it is dispersed internally in a given university and externally across a country? When everyone is specialized, each knows a lot about a little of the organization. What happens to the whole? Managing the pieces does not equate to managing the whole enterprise. The networks (coincidentally) were launched just prior to the recession. Corporate and government downsizing, debt and deficit reduction, restructuring, and re-engineering continue to be pressing priorities that must be addressed. In turn these events have created external pressures on universities, whose research base is continually challenged to do more with less for a wider set of stakeholders. Downsizing will create leanness; it alone will not create greatness. The globalization of economies and regionalization of world trade continues to strengthen. Once governments, corporations, and institutions start to live within their new means, how will they continue to serve society, add value, and generate growth?
While large mature corporations downsize, numerous small businesses are being created, growing, creating jobs, capturing market share, and entering new international markets. In fact, the majority of new jobs is being created within the rapidly growing small and medium-size firms driven by science-based innovation and technology. Similarly, regional economies are growing while some national economies are struggling. Emerging from these shifts in former trading patterns are new ideas about management and economies of scale and scope. To be incisive and decisive in the throes of diverse complexity challenges the best in these unparalleled times. There are no crystal balls, and when technological opportunities become common knowledge, it is too late if the only power of action is with those anchored in the old economy. The advocates of the new economy are in the laboratories, discovering for the future. It has been said that when the air is filled with discontent, when the minds of the people are confused, it is reasonably certain that an old order is crumbling, and a new one is struggling to be born. The struggle for acceptable performance in the networks has been unparalleled in its scope and scale. These restless waves of uncertainty call for insight, vision, and champions with the passion and the courage to step out and lead. Only then can the new frontiers be crossed.
NeuroScience Network: A New Paradigm at Work
The NeuroScience Network in Canada is a learning model of the knowledge industry at work. It demonstrates the power of networking and the need for multiple partnerships in leveraging intellectual resources to economic value in today's climate.
Catalyzed in 1989, when the government of Canada announced the competitive program to fund the creation of National Centres of Excellence linking scientists to collaborate in their research and in the commercialization of the results of research a core group of neuroscientists from fourteen universities across Canada worked hard for months to put together a proposal to establish the NeuroScience Network. In 1990 the proposal was accepted. Initial funding was for $25.5 million over a four-year period, subsequently renewed for another four years for $21 million in 1994. The NeuroScience Network continues to initiate and focus on research designed to help understand the critical biological processes required for the generation of the damaged nervous system, to devise experimental strategies to lessen neural damage and promote growth and connectivity of interrupted nerve fibers, and to enhance and assist functional recovery from neural injury and disease.
The NeuroScience Network now comprises over two hundred principal scientists, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students whose research activities have evolved over the past seven years from a collection of hundreds of independent projects with no particular connection to each other into six powerful coherent themes. First, this process required significant and sustained scientific leadership to overcome the barriers that are the hallmark of internationally competitive research groups when faced with the needs for collaboration. Second, the process of moving towards thematically related research meant hard decisions were to be made on some unrelated research activities, which would be phased out of the network. Third, the opportunity to advance new ideas and discoveries outside the ongoing research had to be fostered within the themes. Thus a small but significant amount of research money was set aside for seed money in competitive bids.
The above three functions of leadership were carried out by the scientific director of the network and senior colleagues on the scientific review committee. It was important that all actions were clear and seen to be based on evidence, merit, and value to the network, not on the politics of geography, language, or gender.
The network format had from the very beginning enjoyed a strong board of directors drawn from leading business people, university presidents, former presidents of national scientific bodies, and scientists from the network. This too proved to be governance in uncharted territories. Very early on it became also clear that, as in any board, the finances, legal status, and assets of the network were the directors' major responsibilities, as well as the need to keep a continual eye on positive government relations and potential commercial ventures.
The executive director of the network provided not only the day-to-day management of the headquarters' office and board affairs, but the operational leadership on the nonscientific activities, which had a great impact on the network, from audit and cash flow to compliance with government regulations. As an independently unincorporated legal entity, the NeuroScience Network required intellectual property rights (IPR) agreements with all of its collaborating scientists and institutions. This vast and daunting task involved everyone from the university presidents and their lawyers to technology transfer officers to the scientists themselves, somewhat analogous to a world trade negotiation. But without this agreement, the next and vitally important step towards commercialization could not be taken. Who owned the assets? Who was entitled to exploit the IPR? The network was a separate, virtual organization superimposed upon the existing professional and funded research activity in (by now) eighteen autonomous institutions situated in seven federated provinces, each with different policies on tax, overhead, and postsecondary funding. Furthermore, how can a charitable-status nontaxable entity such as the network either afford or begin to conduct commercial profit-making activities without losing its cash or its status? Once again, innovation was the route to the answer.
The board of directors set out to try and establish a venture capital fund to invest in promising R&D and take it to the precompetitive stage, upon which commercialization would be seriously evaluated as a business case.
At the onset, the network had decided that world-class neuroscience in Canada, funded by the public sector, should be managed as a national asset to build neuroscience industry. Spinoff firms develop the knowledge-based economy, using intellectual resources for the economic development of Canada, versus licensing arrangements alone. The economic development of firms in other countries in resource-based areas, such as forestry and fisheries, had benefited demonstrably from Canadian R&D. It was important to ensure commercialization of biomedical products also took root in Canada, particularly since the changes in the Patent Act removed some of the longstanding barriers to private-sector investment.
The opportunity in neurosciences and therapeutics is huge, and worldwide markets exist in developed and developing countries. Furthermore, the benefits to humanity of such research were a major motivation in the network.
Neuroscience is a major engine driving the biotechnology revolution, a revolution that some analysts maintain will surpass the telecommuncations/computer industry in scale and scope. Ninety percent of neuroscience knowledge has been obtained in the past decade. Research and development in neurological therapeutics is projected to surpass that in all other categories of pharmaceuticals. Frost and Sullivan, in a recent publication, concluded that the neurological therapeutics market reached $2 billion in 1994 and is forecasted to exceed $4 billion in 2001, a mere seven years. The U.S. Congress has identified biomedical research as an engine of economic growth. In 1996, Congress granted the National Institutes of Health a budget increase of 5.8 percent—a significant decision in this era of deficit and reduction. Clearly, neuroscience is moving into a promising new era of discovery and invention. In North America alone, it is estimated that injury and disease to the brain and spinal cord cost $350 billion annually, $30 billion for Canadians. The advancement of neuroscience leading to application is a pressing priority and a major opportunity for leadership and worldwide S&T collaborations.
While the NeuroScience Network plays a pivotal role in building a neuroscience industry in Canada, a national effort of partnerships is required to build a strong, competitive, and sustainable industry in this fast-moving science in a global marketplace. There are at least five conditions for success:
1. Intellectual Resources: A critical mass of researchers, coupled to platforms of technologies, intellectual property rights, and interdisciplinary scientific knowledge is required. The NeuroScience Network brings this resource to the partnership.
2. Financial Resources: Given the fact that it can take up to ten years and $350 million to get one drug to the marketplace, the product development process requires deep pockets of patient capital. After two years of hard negotiations, the NeuroScience Network was successful in obtaining Royal Bank, Caisse de Depot, and MDS Health Ventures to lead an initiative among the financial community to establish a special fund dedicated to building a neuroscience industry in Canada. The Neuroscience Partners Fund, created in 1994, invests in the early-stage development of network technologies with commercially promising potential, and the initial venture capital raised privately exceeded $50 million. The fund has a ten-year horizon to realize dividend results.
3. Industrial Resources: The network and the fund alone cannot commercialize the results of neuroscience research. Industry-specific business leadership, commercialization experience, and technical resources are essential. With the biotech industry in its infancy, this is a limited resource in Canada and one of the most important issues we face. Outstanding technologies with commercial promise, combined with financial capital, can attract top business management. The network has a commercialization committee of the board with business membership. This committee oversees and supports the network and the Neuroscience Partners Fund as they pursue joint initiatives to establish new businesses in Canada. The first objective is to form partnerships with existing biotech companies. When that is not possible, new companies are formed and new experienced management obtained. To date some six ventures have been launched or will be commercialized by 1997.
4. Human Resources: A neuroscience industry requires more than technology, financial capital, and business leadership. A broad range of human expertise is essential. For those with a science background, there are many occupational and career choices emerging from the network: academic research, commercial research, bioinformatics, highly specialized systems and computer skills, and regulatory policy and processes all the way from patent protection to drug approvals. Finally, but by no means least important, the business side offers attractive opportunities in investments, marketing, manufacturing, and corporate leadership. This is an emerging growth field of new career opportunities, and it offers a new kind of opportunity to form educational partnerships with business schools to provide executive or MBA customized programs, or with firms to provide internships for such highly qualified scientific professionals wishing to go into business operations.
5.Government, a Strategic Partner: If the research pipeline of neuroscience goes dry or becomes marginalized by world standards, there will be no new industry in Canada. This country can build a new industry, but it can only be sustained provided there continues to be a dynamic source of future leading-edge science, and outcome technologies offering potential new products to feed the new industry. This is a fundamental condition for long-term success. Investors and industry will make substantial investments to develop the results of science, showing commercial promise. They will not invest in the base of discovery science. Either governments do this part of the investment, or scientists will be forced offshore, or be funded by the large international pharmaceutical companies. In the latter case, the resulting technologies will go offshore to fuel the economic development of other countries. Recent studies on foreign direct investment and its linkages to foreign R&D in the U.S. underscore the importance of retaining a first-class base of scientists and engineers in a technology-based economy. 11 Government, therefore, is a strategic, long-term partner with the network, ensuring that its continuing investments are maximized to benefit all Canadians. The government of Canada's investment of $46 million in the network's science base to March 1998 has already been leveraged by private-sector investments in Canadian neuroscience exceeding $153 million since the Neuroscience Partners Fund was created in 1994. Spillover in R&D always benefits the wider community, as a recent assessment by the U.S. Council of Economic Advisors has pointed out, 13 to the tune of 20-50 percent leveraged on initial investment as a minimum. It is critical to realize that this approach is not a subsidy to the private sector but a strategic investment by government to pump-prime R&D, which in the longer run typically generates a fourfold return on the dollar to that sector. New businesses will offer new managerial and technical jobs and new job and career opportunities for our youth.
Experience shows that for every biotech job created, another 1.5 jobs are generated in associated industries.
Ultimately the new industry will generate new wealth that will contribute to the economic and social development of this country. One of the greatest benefits? of course, will be new treatments and ultimately new cures for many of those suffering brain or spinal cord damage. Currently, treatments for most neural disorders are either unsatisfactory or nonexistent. Without breakthroughs, the aging population will impose almost impossible burdens on society. New advances will have a phenomenal positive impact on people's lives and the economic and social costs involved.
The NeuroScience Network is a new paradigm at work, a national organization, a national resource and a Canadian strength upon which to build. With the proactive leadership of academia, investors, industry, and government in a national effort of partnerships, Canada will have an industry of the future in neuroscience and will be a strong international collaborator in the global neuroscience community.
Lessons Gleaned from Partnerships
Few countries or organizations today can afford to duplicate R&D activities in place at the expense of innovation and discovery. If excellence is a criterion with national and international currency, then setting fewer goals—but with full resources to accomplish those goals—is a winning strategy. Thus the era of partnerships is not simply a temporary device to meet economic constraints; it is a new approach to genuine growth—intellectual, scientific, and economic.
Strategic partnerships bring a confluence of expertise and experience that lead to activities which share the risks and costs, accelerate timescales and benefits, and most of all, enhance the overall sustainability of the venture.
Scientists naturally seek to operate in an international milieu. However, not all scientists have similar access to resources or major R&D facilities, and thus for individual scientists collaborative partnerships offer an attractive option. He or she who brings good ideas to the scientific table is usually a most welcome guest and eventually a collaborator. The culture of creative collaboration, however, is a delicate one that grows upon trust, confidence, and mutual respect for intellectual property. Enforced collaborators are artificial devices that fall apart in due course because these vital components are missing.
By selecting strategic partnerships, wherein the partners bring different but complementary and necessary expertise or resources to the project, one is also putting in place (albeit not perhaps so deliberately) a risk mitigation strategy. Risks can be in finance, technology, regulatory issues, and so forth, and this aspect of a risk strategy to assist in selecting the profile of international partners has been summarized elsewhere. 12
Partnerships between the finance and research sector range from equity partnerships to joint research ventures, to marketing and distribution of existing IPR products through third-party licensing agreements. Whatever the specific terms, it is crucial to have patent, licensing, and other IPR issues fully written down. If knowledge is the essence of the new economy, then learning how to trade and protect knowledge is a core skill for every scientific or technical investigator, manager or board director who governs the assets dispersed throughout the network. The regulatory role of governments in patents must be to foster growth of private and public assets.
In summary, five guiding principles emerge from this network and NCE partnership experiences for both public policy and scientific development. Governments fund the base of discovery science; the NeuroScience Partners Fund invests in the early development of the results of research; industrial partners in Canada provide business management and the early development of products from technologies; and national and international strategic alliances commercialize the products, providing market scale and scope. To date, from the NCEs, over twenty-seven companies have been created, over three thousand people are employed in the NCEs, which now are linked to 629 organizations including 405 firms, 76 government departments or agencies, 48 universities, and 37 hospitals. 9 The NCE partnerships have truly changed the way of research and produced results.
1. Principle of Champion(s): Leaders with the insight, vision, credibility, and passion to champion the cause and engage and enroll others. In the case of the NeuroScience Network, the champions were a group of committed, internationally recognized neuroscientists from across Canada, backed initially by government funding.
2. Principle of Core Strengths: World-class neuroscience offering the potential for platforms of commercially promising technologies. This concept of "critical mass" enhances commercial viability, attracting investors and management.
3.Principle of Networking: The glue that binds the network is more than money. It is the opportunity to collaborate on jointly funded projects across institutional lines. This is an excellent way for a country the size of Canada but with a small population of 29 million to leverage scarce resources in a science and a marketplace that are global.
4. Principle of Partnerships: The NeuroScience Network alone, or indeed with government, could not build a neuroscience industry in Canada. The two do not represent the knowledge package and the resource package required to build an industry of the future. Rather, the network provides a critical mass of intellectual resources and human scientific expertise; government funds the base of discovery science; the NeuroScience Partners Fund invests in the early development of the results of research; industrial partners in Canada provide business management and the early development of products from technologies; and international strategic alliances commercialize the products, providing market scale and scope. Only this combination of skills, expertise and resource capability can build an industry of the future.
5. Principle of Managing Risk: The partnership works best when expectations and results are well matched. A common understanding and an agreed strategy about the financial risks, technological risks, market risks, international business risks, environmental risks, regulatory risks, competition risks, risk of obsolescence, human sources risks, and burnout risks are critical. 12 As risks vary, case by case, this is not a definitive list, but in this era of complexity, uncertainty, and interdependency, the principle of a strategy for managing risk is essential.
Managing intellect as a resource requires a phenomenal shift in cultures for all. Moving from a culture of managing performance (what people do), to a culture of managing intellect (what people know and think), will require a monumental shift in attitudes and management practices across the board. The time has come, and the technology exists, for us to learn to cultivate and manage not only our natural and physical resources, but also the global resource of intellect and knowledge, while respecting serendipity and intellectual freedom as values driving discovery. This is the new wealth of organizations and nations and a source of their growing interdependence in a globalizing economy, as we build capacity through science-based development.
References
Note 1: Business in the Contemporary World: Special Issue on Canada, Vol. 3, no. 1 (1990).
Note 2: Michael Porter, "Canada at the Cross Roads: The Reality of a New Competitive Environment," Business Council on National Issues and Ministry of Supply and Services, Canada (1991).
Note 3: National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, Committee Report to the Prime Minister, "The Financing of Innovation," Ottawa, (1990).
Note 4: G.A. Kenney-Wallace, "Science, Technology and Linkages to Contemporary Business: Distraction or Destiny?" Business in the Contemporary World 3, no. I (1990): 35-51.
Note 5: G.A. Kenney-Wallace and F. Mustard, "Paradox and Paradigms: The Evolution of Science and Technology Policy in Canada," Daedalus, 177 (1988).
Note 6: Science Council of Canada, Report on Science and Technology Infrastructure (March 1984); National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators (Washington, D.C., 1993).
Note 7: Science Council of Canada, Winning in a World Economy: The Role of Universities in Economic Renewal (Ottawa 1 987).
Note 8: Premiers Council Reports, Government of Ontario: Competing in the New Economy (1988); People and Skills in the New Global Economy (1990).
Note 9: Technology Ontario, Annual Reports, Centres of Excellence (Canada Ministry of Economic Development and Services, 1995); Annual Report of Networks of Centres of Excellence (Canada Ministry of Supply and Services, 1996).
Note 10: New York Academy of Sciences, Global Cooperation in Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NewYork, 1996).
Note 11: OEC'D, The Performance of Foreign Affiliates in OECD Countries (Paris, 1994).
Note 12: G.A. Kelmey-Wallace, "Risk Strategy as a Comparative Advantage," Perspectives 4, no. 2 Centre for International Business, University of Toronto (1996).
Note 13: V.S. Council of Economic Advisors Report, Supporting Research and Development to Promote Economic Growth (Washington, D.C., 1995).
Email this citation