The Socio-Economic Importance of Scientific Research To Canada

The Socio-Economic Importance of Scientific Research to Canada Page 29© David A. Wolfe and Ammon SalterNote: Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each source or method on a 7 point scale. Thefigures indicate the percentage of respondents rating each source/method at 5 or higher on that scale.The study broke the reponses down to 16 sectors.Source: Arundel et al. 1995A recent study in Canada highlighted the role of instrumentation in research. Based on a 1990survey of equipment in Canadian universities, Rank and Williams were able to determine theamount spent in 1989 in Canadian universities on instrumentation and to compare these figureswith data from the US and the UK. Rank and Williams showed that Canadian researchers haveless instrumentation per researcher and department than their American cousins and thatCanadian instrumentation was older and less computerized. They suggested that “manyresearchers do not have access to advanced instrumentation necessary to undertake world–classresearch. Furthermore, the 1980s witnessed a serious decline in the condition and state ofrepair of the nation's equipment stock” (Rank and Williams 1997, p. 113). Rank and Williamsargued that a lack of modern equipment in Canadian universities makes it “difficult orimpossible to undertake ground-breaking science” (p. 113). The recent Federal and Provincialinitiatives in this area may prove effective in redressing this instrumentation gap. Yet, the pastcost of poor equipment will hinder the training and development of research skills in thecurrent generation of Canadian students.Networks and Social Interaction:Derek De Solla Price has stressed the important role of government funding in providing apoint of entry into the personal and knowledge–based networks of expertise and practice(1984). Government funding affords individuals and organizations the means to participate inthe world–wide community of research and technological activity. The economic benefits ofsuch networks are very difficult to measure. Evidence collected thus far indicates that firms dofind informal methods of interaction an important means of learning about public research andtechnological activity. Table 3 (above) highlighted how different methods for learning aboutpublic research have been rated by firms in Europe (Arundel et al. 1995).Networks have been the focus of a great deal of empirical research. This research indicatesthat firms and industries link with the publicly–funded science base in many different ways.These links often are informal. Faulkner and Senker, in their book Knowledge Frontiers,studied the nature of public–private sector linkages in three areas — biotechnology,engineering ceramics and parallel computing. Their research indicates that good personalrelationships between firms and public sector scientists are the key to successful collaboration29