Adventures in the nature of trade: The quest for 'relevance' and 'excellence' in Canadian science

The study addresses: (1) changes in Canada's science-policy climate over the past two decades; (2) impacts of such changes on the conduct and organization of academic science; and (3) public-interest implications of promoting, in public institutions, research ‘relevant’ to private sector needs. Working within the interdisciplinary traditions of science studies, the conceptual framework draws on the cross-cutting tensions at the intersection of public and private space, and basic and applied science. These tensions are articulated in two opposing models: ‘open science’ and ‘overflowing networks’.; Canada's Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) program provides the study's empirical focus. Founded in 1988, the NCE program rests on dual goals of research excellence and commercial relevance. It promotes a national research capacity that ‘floats across’ existing provincial institutions. The first part of the study investigates the evolution of the NCE program against the background of Canadian science policy. The second part problematizes the notion of ‘network’ while investigating one of the NCEs in depth, examining the scientific, commercial, cultural, and spatial-structural practices that are the outcomes of policy. Examination of these practices reveals not only the cultural and commercial shifts sought by policy, but also unintended consequences such as regional clustering; élitism and exclusion; problems with social and fiscal accountability; tensions with host institutions; and goal displacement between science and commerce.; In relation to the overall problematic, the study constructs a new typology depicting network scientists as ‘settlers’, ‘translators’, or ‘merchant scientists’ according to their public/private, basic/applied orientation. The study then develops a set of broad conclusions about NCEs, especially those in the life sciences. (1) Translational research —at the nexus of public/private, basic/applied—is foundational for these networks. (2) As policy/practice hybrids, their spatial dynamics are highly enigmatic. (3) NCEs develop contradictory cultural norms. (4) Network effects resist standard assessments. (5) ‘Public’ and ‘profit’ seem to be problematic partners. (6) The recent historical focus of science policy has been myopic. The study expresses concerns for the public interest when commercial ‘relevance’ becomes an overarching goal of both science and policy. It concludes with a recommendation for open networks that would retain the flexibility of the network form, but would produce open rather than proprietary knowledge.