Consider the space race, which occured between 1955 to 1972 and saw the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. competing for superiority in space technologies. This resulted in a drive in innovation and increased incentives to do research. Alone a similar line, consider the impact of education policy decisions. In Canada, most universities are public—meaning that a large percentage of their operating budget is provided by the government. The impact a government has on the study of science is enormous.
McGill and other universities are working together to promote the interests of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) students in the decision-making process. One such organization is the Science & Policy Exchange (SPE) group.
One of the problems they hope to address is life after graduation for scientists. With the number of PhDs awarded increasing year after year, this education policy is becoming increasingly important.
“In general, I think that the way […] universities are set up to teach science at the doctoral level is still really designed as a pipeline for academia, and increasingly more students are not able to get jobs in academia,” Liam Crapper, a Neuroscience PhD student at McGill and a member of SPE, said. “You do develop a lot of the skills you need for other jobs, but not in a very explicit way. A lot of it is opportunities you have to seek out yourself. I think there’s a lot more that could be done to prepare students for the workplace when they leave. Some of that would be business management skills, or communication skills, or even just how to write a business CV.”
SPE, which features roughly 15 students from Montreal universities, has run conferences since 2010 with the purpose of facilitating conversations on the relationship between science and public policy. Past speakers came from a variety of backgrounds—from academics such as McGill Professors Howard Bergman and Joe Schwarcz, director of the McGill Office for Science and Society, to professionals from industry like Jesse Vincent-Herscovici, a senior account manager at the NGO Miltacs.
“It started as a group that was doing a lot of awareness activities, so we hosted conferences over the years,” Crapper said. “Lately, we’ve been trying to get into policy advocacy. We focus on a lot of student involvement and getting a lot of student perspectives.”
Despite the value of starting conversations, SPE was still looking to do something with more tangible results.
“A the end of the day, everyone enjoyed themselves and seemed to really like it, but […] what can we do [with] that?” Chelsea Cavanagh, past president of SPE, explained. “There’s not much we produced from that—the impact is harder to measure.”
Across the world, scientists frequently find themselves in the heart of governments, taking up positions dedicated specifically to promoting scientifically-informed policy. In Quebec and New Zealand, for example, the position of chief scientist has been created to facilitate communication between science and policy. The current Canadian cabinet features two portfolios related to science: A minister of Science and a minister of Innovation, Science and Economic development.
Not all governments have been following this trend. The same week that the European Space Agency landed the Rosetta probe on a comet, the European Union (EU) eliminated the position of chief science advisor to the EU president in 2014. That year also saw the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada close seven of its 11 libraries across the country. Compared to hot-button issues like the economy, pensions, and international relations, science can seem comparatively dull at best, and irrelevant at worst.
“It’s important that decision-making be done with a large evidence base, and that we invest a lot of money as [a] country in science and in innovation, and in developing all this knowledge base,” Crapper said. “Sometimes we go to form policy or make decisions and it get left out or ignored, and that results in both poor policy making and in some ways a waste of money.”
According to a report from the British government, when scientists and policy-makers interact, there are very real results.
“Research confirms that engagement between innovators and the science base creates real welfare benefit,” the report reads. “In fact, a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that 1 per cent growth in public research and development (R&D)lead to a 0.17 per cent increase in total factor productivity in the long run. Moreover, this effect increases with the share of public science conducted in universities.”
This year, the SPE is trying something different. On Nov. 28, SPE brought together 15 students and 11 professors to discuss STEM education policy and produce a white paper outlining their conclusions and recommendations.
“The goal of the event [… was] to come up with policy guidelines that can be sent to government and people who are involved with making these kinds of decisions,” Crapper explained.
Dialogue between groups that don’t normally interact with each other was a distinguishing feature of the event.
“Basically the idea of the event [was] that we’re going to bring together a bunch of students who are actively thinking about these kinds of issues related to science and technology and education, and bring them together with experts in different fields and different stakeholder groups,” Crapper said. “They’ll come up with a set of guidelines, and at the end, we’ll put the solutions they’ve developed into a formal document.”
This year, the SPE is trying tackled the role of public policy in shaping STEM education. This approach is unique because most reports about STEM education policy in the past have not come from groups that are directly affected by policy decisions.
“We’re actually listening to the students here, and taking their thoughts into account,” Cavanagh said.
Ultimately, the group hopes to bring the students’ perspectives to the attention of policymakers.
“The naïve optimist hopes to see all of our suggestions put into policy,” Crapper said. “I think one of the biggest challenges after [the white paper] is done, but also one of the most important things is making sure it gets into the hands of decision makers [….] From there, the ball is in their court.”
The group hopes that by giving them more information the policymakers will be able to make better and more informed decisions when designing science education policies.
“[Hopefully] the voice of the students will be represented in their decision making in the future,” said Crapper.