The Role of Expectations of Science As Promissory Discourses in Shaping Research Policy: a Case Study of the Creation of Genome Canada

The Role of Expectations of Science as Promissory Discourses in Shaping Research Policy: A Case Study of the Creation of Genome Canada

Margaret Amanda Lemay

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education University of Toronto

The Role of Expectations of Science as Promissory Discourses in Shaping Research Policy: A Case Study of the Creation of Genome Canada

Margaret Amanda Lemay

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education University of Toronto

2019 Abstract

This thesis examines promise of science discourse and its impacts in shaping research policy.

Through a single case study of the origins of Genome Canada, the research was guided by the question: How did expectations of genomics, as promise of genomics discourse, shape the creation of Genome Canada? Background is presented on the long-standing, but largely unacknowledged, relationship between the promise of science and research policy. Theoretical grounding for the study is provided by concepts from the discursive policy analysis and sociology of expectations of science and technology literatures. Promise of genomics discourse, expectations of genomics of story-lines and a conceptualization of knowledge-based discursive power provide the theoretical and analytical basis for an in-depth examination of the ideational effects and material impacts on research policy decisions over three years (1997 – 2000) that sought to position Canada as a leader, internationally, in genomics research. As discourse, the promise of genomics fulfilled an essential role in shaping policy decisions. The promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines functioned in a complex interplay of discursive practices and dynamics among diverse policy actors within a promise of genomics discourse-coalition to produce a range of ideational and material impacts. The promise of

ii genomics discourse produced powerful promise of genomics subject-positions from which policy actors perceived their interests, identities and preferences and gained agency, which led to various material impacts, including the transformation of Canada’s research policy framework.

The thesis derives valuable insights about how the diverse policy actors involved in the research policy process perceive and are influenced by the promise of science. With the increasing importance of research policy to a range of broader policy priorities underpinned by expectations that science will resolve societal challenges and contribute to socio-economic benefits, this thesis sheds light on how complex research policy decisions are made; it further contributes to understanding the processes that lead to those decisions that increasingly must reconcile the relationship between science and society.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge those individuals who graciously participated in my research by sharing their memories, documents and personal files. I am grateful to Janet Buchanan who so patiently sorted through the hundreds of files so generously provided by Dr. Lap-Chee Tsui. I would also like to acknowledge the science-based departments and agencies, the Library and Archives of Canada and the McGill University Archives who responded so effectively to my multiple formal and informal requests for information.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my supervisor Dr. Creso Sá for his guidance and advice, but also for his intuition in crafting a personalized doctoral experience suited to my interests and goals. My thanks to my committee members Dr. Glen Jones and Dr. Carol Campbell for their thoughtful and thought-provoking comments and feedback on early drafts.

To Merli, Helen, Darren, Dan and Eric, it was a pleasure and a privilege to share this experience with you. Thank you for sharing your journey with me.

I am so very grateful for Vera and Anne, who guided me through the dark moments and believed in me when I didn’t.

Finally, to my husband, René and children Brigitte, Jason and Bailey, who gave me the encouragement and, more importantly, the space to pursue this lifelong dream, I dedicate this work to you.

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... V

LIST OF TABLES ...... VIII

LIST OF FIGURES ...... IX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... X

LIST OF APPENDICES ...... XII

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ...... 1

RESEARCH QUESTION ...... 11

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ...... 13

CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS ...... 16

INTRODUCTION ...... 16

DISCURSIVE POLICY ANALYSIS ...... 16 Policy as Discourse ...... 17 Discursive Power ...... 22 Limitations of Discursive Policy Analysis ...... 35

SOCIOLOGY OF EXPECTATIONS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ...... 36 Conceptualizations of Expectations of Science and Technology ...... 38 Key Contributions of the Sociology of Expectations Literature ...... 44

CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 49

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 51

RESEARCH QUESTION ...... 51

STUDY DESIGN AND CASE SELECTION ...... 52

RESEARCH METHODS AND STRATEGIES ...... 55 Data Item Selection ...... 55 Data Item Triage ...... 59 Data Item Classification ...... 60 Data Extract Generation ...... 61 Thematic Analyses ...... 63 Connecting Strategy: Case History Construction ...... 64

BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL ANALYSES ...... 65

VALIDITY ...... 66

CHAPTER 4 THE POWER OF THE PROMISE OF GENOMICS DISCOURSE IN SHAPING RESEARCH POLICY ...... 69

INTRODUCTION ...... 69

EXPECTATIONS OF GENOMICS STORY-LINES ...... 70

FIRST MANDATE – THE MRC GENOMICS TASK FORCE ...... 76 Policy Discourse and the Promise of Science ...... 76 The Promise of Genomics Discourse ...... 79 The Expectations of Genomics Story-lines ...... 84 Ideational and Material Effects of the Promise of Genomics Discourses ...... 95

SECOND MANDATE – MEMORANDUM TO CABINET I ...... 103 Policy Discourse and the Promise of Science ...... 104 The Promise of Genomics Discourse ...... 108 Expectations of Genomics Story-lines ...... 112 Ideational and Material Effects of the Promise of Genomics Discourse ...... 124

THIRD MANDATE—MEMORANDUM TO CABINET II ...... 133 Policy Discourse and the Promise of Science ...... 133 The Promise of Genomics Discourse ...... 140 Expectations of Genomics Story-lines ...... 142 Ideational and Material Effects of the Promise of Genomics Discourse ...... 161

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ...... 182

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ...... 188

DISCUSSION ...... 189 Discursive Patterns and Relationships of the Expectations of Genomics Story-Lines ...... 189 Evolution of Expectations of Genomics Story-lines Across the Three Mandates ...... 193 Expectations of Genomics Story-lines as Knowledge ‘yet-to-be’ ...... 196 Promise of Genomics Discourse and the Precautionary Principle ...... 197 Ideational Effects as a Precondition for Material Impacts...... 198 Generative Power of Promise of Genomics Discourse...... 199 The Role of Discursive Agents – Scientists & Knowledge Brokers ...... 200 Policy Context: A Unique Moment in Canadian Politics ...... 204

CONCLUSIONS ...... 205

IMPLICATIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, FUTURE SCHOLARSHIP AND RESEARCH POLICY ...... 213 Implications for Higher Education ...... 216

Implications for Future Scholarship ...... 218 Implications for Research Policy ...... 222

REFERENCES ...... 226

APPENDIX A – ETHICS PROTOCOL ...... 243

ETHICS APPROVAL ...... 243

INTERVIEW REQUEST EMAIL ...... 243

INFORMED CONSENT LETTER ...... 244

INTERVIEW GUIDES ...... 246

APPENDIX B - LIST OF DATA ITEMS ...... 248

APPENDIX C – EXPLORING DATA VISUALIZATION ...... 275

vii

List of Tables

TABLE 3.1 STRUCTURE OF THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM...... 61

TABLE 4.1. DEFINING THEMES OF EXPECTATIONS OF GENOMICS STORY-LINES...... 71

TABLE 4.2. IDEATIONAL AND MATERIAL EFFECTS OF PROMISE OF GENOMICS DISCOURSE DURING THE FIRST MANDATE...... 96

TABLE 4.3. IDEATIONAL AND MATERIAL EFFECTS OF PROMISE OF GENOMICS DISCOURSE DURING THE SECOND MANDATE...... 126

TABLE 4.4. IDEATIONAL AND MATERIAL EFFECTS OF PROMISE OF GENOMICS DISCOURSE DURING THE THIRD MANDATE...... 164

TABLE 4.5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... 183

TABLE A-1. INTERVIEW GUIDES...... 246

viii

List of Figures

FIGURE C-1. EXPLORING DATA VISUALIZATION IN THE EARLY STAGES OF DATA ANALYSIS...... 275

List of Abbreviations

AAFC Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

AAFC-Policy Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Policy Branch

ACGTF Atlantic Canada Genome Task Force

ADM Assistant Deputy Minister

CBS Canadian Biotechnology Strategy

CBS-RD Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Research and Development Committee

CBS-TF Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Task Force

CCEU Cabinet Committee on the Economic Union

CFI Canada Foundation for Innovation

CGAT Canadian Genomic Analysis and Technology Program

CIHR Canadian Institutes for Health Research

DM Deputy Minister

DPA Discursive Policy Analysis

ELSI Ethics Legal and Social Issues

EU European Union

GE3LS Genomics Ethical Economic Environmental Legal and Social

GRP Genome Research Program

GTF Genome Task Force

HQP Highly Qualified Personnel

IC Industry Canada

LS-IC-MC Life Science Branch, Industry Canada, Memorandum to Cabinet Team

MC Memorandum to Cabinet

MELSI Medical, Ethical, Legal, Social Issues

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MP Member of Parliament

MRC Medical Research Council of Canada

NBAC National Biotechnology Advisory Committee

NCE Networks of Centres of Excellence

NRC National Research Council of Canada

NSERC Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

ORDCF Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund

PCO Privy Council Office

PGST Personal Genetics Standard Test

SBDA Science-based Departments and Agencies

SSHRC Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

TBS Treasury Board Secretariat

List of Appendices

Appendix A - Ethics Protocol…………………………………………………………………243

Appendix B - List of Data Items………………………………………………………………248

Appendix C – Exploring Data Visualization………………………………………………….275

xii

Chapter 1 Introduction

The Research Problem

Research policies represent the aspirations of a nation for a better future based on the expectation that science will solve society’s problems and provide socio-economic benefits. The perceived strategic importance of research policy has increased over the past 50 years as nations have envisioned the promise of science in almost every realm of society and human activity (Mitcham & Froderman, 2004; Sarewitz & Pielke Jr., 2007). The shifting and expanding visions of the promise of science have been the catalysts for significant increases in investments in publicly funded research, as well as structural and institutional changes in the practice, management and coordination of publicly funded research, over the past several decades (Dill & van Vught, 2009; Gibbons et al., 1994; Gläser & Laudel, 2016; Nowotny et al., 2001; Sarewitz et al., 2004). Research policy is defined as “the decision process through which individuals and institutions allocate and organize the intellectual and fiscal resources that enable the conduct of scientific research” (Sarewitz et al., 2004, p. 67). Decisions about which fields of science to fund, the levels of funding to allocate and the choice of administrative and management instruments have implications in the present and for the future, implications that impact the direction and trajectory of scientific research, the knowledge that is and is not produced, the technologies that are and are not developed, the social challenges that are and are not addressed and the individuals, both researchers and users, who will and will not benefit (Gläser & Laudel, 2016; Nowotny, 2014., Sarewitz & Piekle Jr., 2007). Despite the growing importance of research policy to broader policy objectives and social goals, the far-reaching implications of research policy decisions and the growing concerns over the lack of effectiveness of existing research policies in linking science to societal benefits, there has been relatively little attention paid to how complex research policy decisions are made or to the processes that lead to research policies (Sarewitz et al., 2004; Logar, 2007; Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008). Moreover, there is even less understanding of how those directly and indirectly responsible for research policy decisions (e.g., policy advisors, policy makers, researchers, knowledge brokers, research administrators, and politicians) perceive and are influenced by the promise of science (Nowotny, 2014). My thesis

1 2 addresses these gaps in the research policy literature by applying a discursive approach to understanding how promise of science discourses shape research policy.

Belief in the promise of science is a hallmark of the modern era. The promise of science is a complex, multi-dimensional discursive phenomenon that is envisioned in many forms—as a product of research (Gibbons et al., 1994), a rigorous, systematic method of intellectual inquiry (Kuhn, 1962/2012), a credible, reliable body of knowledge (Douglas, 2009), a means of solving societal challenges (Bush, 1945), a social institution (Merton, 1942), a source of social legitimacy and authority (Douglas, 2009; Ziman, 1984), international esteem (Godin & Doré, 2005; Lundvall & Borrás, 2005) and economic competitiveness (Geiger & Sá, 2008). The promise of science is the driving force behind decisions to invest significant public resources in scientific research. It is the belief that investments in scientific research will lead to advances in science and technology, which will lead to a range of socio-economic impacts and benefits for those who make the investments. Science has contributed much to society and humanity and continues to do so. Given the past success of science in contributing to social progress and prosperity, our faith in the promise of science appears to be well founded. Yet, science has also failed to live up to our expectations, contributing to many of the social challenges it is now expected to address (Sarewitz et al., 2004). This is the paradox of the promise of science.

The paradox of the promise of science can be seen in the scholarly analyses and critiques of research policy to effectively exploit the putative link between science and social benefits (Doern, Castle & Phillips, 2016; Logar, 2011; Phillips, 2010; Saner, 2014; Sarewitz et al., 2004; Sarewitz et al., 2007; Tyfield, 2012). In the Canadian context, the paradox of the promise of science is apparent in the recurring research policy reviews that highlight the challenges of managing the outcomes of science to meet national policy goals of socio-economic benefits (Advisory Panel on Federal Support for Fundamental Science, 2017; Canada, 2007; House of Commons Special Committee on Scientific Research, 1919; Jenkins et al., 2011; Royal Commission on Government Organization, 1963; Science Council of Canada, 1968; Science Council of Canada, 1992; Science Technology and Innovation Council, 2011; Senate Special Committee on Science Policy, 1977). Moreover, the paradox of the promise of science is evinced through the unexpected and unintended consequences associated with advances in science and technology, such as environmental contamination, climate change and adverse drug reactions (Sarewitz, 2016)

Genomics, perhaps more than any other science, epitomizes the promise of science in all its manifestations and its paradox. With an approximately 30-year history, genomics is a relatively nascent field of science and technology, but one that has garnered considerable attention from government, industry, academia and the public. Genomics involves the study of the structure, function, processes and interactions of genes (with each other and the environment) through which we come to understand the basic fundamental processes of life. Genomics was envisioned as a paradigm shift in biological research that would “provide the ultimate answers to the chemical underpinnings of human existence” (Watson, 1990, p. 44) leading to an understanding of the origins and processes of life and open a path for the study of human development and illness (Smith & Hood, 1987). The promise of genomics was not limited to revolutionary scientific and technological advances in human biology and medicine. Plant genomics was envisioned to advance understanding of the biological processes of plant life, leading to “new possibilities for improving crop productivity and profitability, quality, food safety and the environment. . .the development of entirely new products. . .to solve problems in agriculture” (Phillips & Freeling, 1998, p. 1969).

The promise of genomics has also been contested from the outset; skepticism and criticism has continued over the past 30 years, concurrent with continuing support. In the beginning, genomics was challenged scientifically on the basis that sequencing and mapping the entire genome was unnecessary because much of the DNA that comprised the genome had no known function; it was essentially considered ‘junk’ and therefore only important segments of DNA, those containing sequences or genes of significance should be the focus of sequencing efforts (Sinsheimer, 1989; U.S. Congress, 1988). The unprecedented cost of sequencing and mapping entire genomes, particularly the human genome, was seen as threat to the funding of other areas of biological and medical research (Lewin, 1986; Watson, 1990). Some scientists questioned the implications that a move to ‘big science’ would have for the future of biological research; arguing that megaprojects of the scale and magnitude of sequencing the human genome were targets for political and bureaucratic control, which jeopardized the autonomy of the peer-review system in making scientific decisions about research (Baltimore, 1987). There was concern over the ethical and social implications of the potential (mis)uses of genomics information (Cavoukian, 1989, 1991; Knoppers & Chadwick, 1994) and about the actual usefulness of sequence data (Ayala, 1987; Lippman, 1992). More recently, criticism of genomics has been largely targeted at its failure to live up to the promises of socio-economic benefits and impacts

(Evans et al., 2011). ‘Genohype’ has emerged as phenomenon of scholarly interest, with dire consequences of over-stated expectations being envisioned (Brown, 2003; Bubela, 2006; Caulfield, 2016; Caulfield & Condit, 2012; Caulfield et al., 2016; Fleising, 2001; Kitzinger, 2008).

The promise of genomics has compelled dramatic transformations in research policy frameworks in many countries, including Canada. As a nation, Canada was slow to embrace the promise of genome research, despite the early involvement of Canadian scientists and their prominent, international recognition for major contributions to genetics research. Canadian scientists began concerted efforts to develop a national genome research strategy and funding program in early 1989 (Cook-Deegan, 1994). With a lack of funding for genomics research, Canadian scientists were concerned that Canada was at risk of being left behind in the wake of growing support by national governments for large scale genome research initiatives. They felt that time was of the essence if Canada was to retain its prominence in the emerging science of genomics (Cook- Deegan, 1994). It was not until 1992 that the federal government agreed to fund genomics research through a nationally coordinated program called the Canadian Genomics Analysis and Technology (CGAT) program (Goujon, 2001). It was a meagre and delayed contribution, but it positioned Canada officially as a contributing participant in the international genome research community; being described in the August 16 issue of Science as “[a]n effort that rivalled the U.S. and British genome projects in quality” (Marshall, 1996, p. 867). CGAT represented a significant departure from the way research was funded in Canada and was seen as an “institutional innovation responding to the need for multidisciplinary research” (Cook-Deegan, 1994, p. 205). However, CGAT was short-lived; it was not renewed beyond the first five years of funding and ceased to operate in 1997, leaving Canada without a formal national funding mechanism for genome research (Marshall, 1996). At this time, the international genomics effort was making extraordinary progress. The focus had shifted from mapping to sequencing (Marshall, 1995; Venter, Smith & Hood, 1996); the genomes of several model organisms had been or were close to being sequenced (Goffeau, 1995; Goffeau et al., 1996; Rubin, 1996) and functional genomics studies were starting (Duboule, 1997; Heiter and Boguski, 1997; Nowak, 1995). Scientific advances were challenging long-held theories of ‘the gene’ and its role in basic biological processes (Keller, 2000). The international genomics research community was just beginning to understand the magnitude of the complexity of the genome, the function(s) of genes and the relationship between genes, development, cellular processes and the external

5 environment (Keller, 2000). The competition among sequencing research groups was increasingly intense, not just for the potential commercial benefits, but sometimes more importantly, national rivalry and for the prestige of ‘curing a disease’ (Marshall, 1997). Without targeted funding for genome research, at a time of unprecedented scientific progress, the Canadian genome research community was at risk of being isolated from the international genome science community with the potential for restricted access to future research results and data (Goujon, 2001).

The efforts to create Genome Canada evolved over three years and three mandates, beginning in March 1997, when the Medical Research Council of Canada (MRC) established a Genome Task Force (GTF) to recommend a national genome research strategy. This first mandate (MRC-GTF) ended in June 1998 with MRC accepting and acting on the recommendations made by the GTF in its report: Genomics: A Platform for the New Century. The second mandate (MC-1) began in July 1998, leading to an unsuccessful Memorandum to Cabinet (MC) requesting funding to establish Genome Canada within a broader investment in biotechnology (Nymark, 2001). The third mandate (MC-2) began in February 1999, culminating in the decision by the federal government to invest $160m to create Genome Canada as an alternative delivery model for genomics research funding and coordination (Nymark, 2001). Genome Canada represented a major transformation of Canada’s research policy framework and permanently changed the institutional structure of Canada’s research funding system. Since being established in 2000, as a not-for-profit corporation under the Canadian Corporations Act, Genome Canada, in collaboration with six regional Genome Centres, has coordinated and managed $3.6 billion of investments in genomics research, with $1.5 billion from the federal government and $2.1 billion from national and international partners, including provincial governments, industrial and other public-sector partners (Genome Canada, 2017).

Like most of its counterpart programs in other countries, Genome Canada has been considered, to varying degrees, both a research policy success and failure (Industry Canada, 2015; Isabelle & Heslop, 2011; Kosseim & Chapman, 2011; Migone and Howlett, 2009; Phillips, 2005; Science- Metrix, 2014; Zhang, 2013). It has not been able to escape the paradox of the promise of genomics. In terms of relevance, the original argument for Genome Canada that nationally coordinated and funded genome research was necessary to position Canada as leader in strategic sectors and to generate socio-economic benefits for Canada and Canadians is even more

6 compelling in light of the competition from traditionally dominant countries, as well as more recent emerging nations (Science-Metrix, 2014). Genomics research funding remains a key policy priority consistent with the federal government’s priorities for investing in science and technology and its mandate to foster and promote science and technology. Genome Canada represents an effective model in the Canadian context to continue as a third-party delivery mechanism for funding large-scale genomics research in Canada (Industry Canada, 2015). Various recent evaluations have confirmed that Genome Canada has generally met its expected targets and outputs (Industry Canada, 2015; Science-Metrix, 2014; Zhang, 2013). Based on an evaluation by Science-Metrix (2014) of the five-year period from 2009-2010 to 2013-14, Genome Canada has contributed to enhancing support and capacity for genomics research in Canada, increasing the global knowledge base in genomics with contributions to the peer- reviewed literature by Genome Canada-funded researchers that exceed those of non-funded researchers. Science-Metrix (2014) also cited evidence that Genome Canada has had a positive impact in the coordination of research and collaboration among national and international stakeholders. Genome Canada has been credited with having a positive influence on Canada’s leadership, international profile and visibility in genomics research and with providing training and career opportunities that have increased the number of highly qualified personnel (Science- Metrix, 2014).

One area where Genome Canada has been particularly successful is in developing genomics, ethical, economic, environmental, legal and social (GE3LS) research (KPMG, 2009; Science- Metrix, 2014). Canada is considered a world-leader in GE3LS research (Nelis et al., 2006). However, Genome Canada’s more recent policy of integrating and embedding GE3LS research into every genomic research project has received mixed reactions and reviews (Kosseim and Chapman, 2011). The assumption that embedded GE3LS research would facilitate the translation of research has not been supported with evidence (Kosseim and Chapman, 2011; Science-Metrix, 2014). The other objective of GE3LS research, which is to raise the awareness of the benefits and risks of genomics science among policy-makers, industry and Canadians has had limited success (Kosseim and Chapman, 2011).

Genome Canada has been effective in providing access to leading-edge genomics technology through its five science and technology innovation centres (Science-Metrix, 2014). In terms of its objective to attract co-funding, Genome Canada has exceeded the 1:1 co-funding target (Industry

Canada, 2015). However, a breakdown of the external funding highlights a weakness that has been a recurring science policy issue for decades: inadequate investment in research by the private sector.1 Industry accounts for only 7% of the external funding for Genome Canada projects (Science-Metrix, 2014). The lack of private sector support for genomics research could be indirectly and partially linked to the major weakness in Genome Canada that has been highlighted in both formal evaluations and the scholarly literature. Genome Canada has been unable to generate tangible, meaningful socio-economic impacts in the form of practical, commercial applications of genomics research (Kosseim and Chapman, 2011). Effective translation and commercialization of genomics research remains a key weakness of the research policy underpinning Genome Canada (Migone and Howlett, 2009; Phillips, 2005). Genome Canada has not met expectations relative to its role in the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy to support the biotechnology industry through basic and applied research (Migone and Howlett, 2009). Similarly, the genome centres have been challenged on their contribution in the development of regional systems of innovation (Niosi, 2005). Phillips (2005) questions whether the research funded by Genome Canada “will result in innovation. . .the transformation of the inventions into socially valued products or services that persist in society” (p. 29). He argues that the “Genome Canada model of development. . .would appear to be flawed, both on theoretical and practical grounds” and that the use of “a wider range of institutional options to manage the creation and use of genomics-based products and technologies”, such as clusters or established communities of research and companies, “present greater potential to lever the latent social capital in the Canadian research and commercial system” (p. 29).

Genome Canada represents the outcome of a discrete and bounded research policy process defined by compelling promise of genomics discourses. Crucially, the process leading to Genome Canada exemplifies the characterization of research policy and the research policy process as an aggregate of decisions that occur among diverse policy actors across many policy venues (Sarewitz et al., 2004). It also bears witness to the challenge of aligning scientific priorities and societal needs (Sarewitz & Pielke Jr., 2007). As such, the process leading to the

1 My historical/background analysis identified six recurring issues that define Canadian science policy over the past century: harnessing science for socio-economic impacts, managing the government-industry-academy relationship, balancing basic and applied research, inadequate investment in R&D by the private sector, centralize coordination of research and training highly qualified personnel.

8 creation of Genome Canada presents an excellent case for examining the complex dynamics of promise of science discourses in shaping research policy.

Scholars have conceptualized and proposed various models that describe an ideal for science policy, including Pasteur’s quadrant (Stokes, 1997), Mode 1-Mode 2 science (Gibbons et al., 1994; Nowotny et al., 2001), post-normal science (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993), well-ordered science (Kitcher, 2001), the triple/quadruple/quintuple helix model (Carayannis & Campbell, 2012; Carayannis et al., 2012; Leydesdorff, 2005), national systems of innovation (Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993), a philosophy of science policy (Mitcham & Froderman, 2004) and most recently Highly Integrative Basic and Responsive (HIBAR) research (Whitehead et al., 2017). Others have attempted to identify the factors that contribute to the success or failure of existing science policy models, in the hope of gaining a better understanding of the dynamics of the complex relationship between science and societal benefits (e.g. Carvalho, 2017; Caufield et al., 2012; Douglas, 2009; Logar, 2011; Sarewitz et al., 2004; Sarewitz & Pielke Jr., 2007). Policy makers have experimented with alternative science policy models, approaches and instruments in the hopes of making science live up to its promise (Carvalho, 2017; Fischer et al., 2001; Salazar & Holbrook, 2007). However, underlying all the scholarly analyses and policy experimentation, a single, overarching assumption remains unquestioned and unexplored—the promise of science. The aim of my thesis is to address this gap with an in-depth analysis of the promise of genomics discourse in order to gain an awareness and understanding of the dynamics (the properties and relationships which catalyze change) of the promise of genomics, its power to shape the interests and decisions of policy actors and the ways in which it permeates and suffuses research policy discourse and the research policy process.

Discursive approaches to policy analysis have emerged as an important area of scholarship in policy studies as the socially contingent, argumentative and rhetorical nature of the policy process is increasingly recognized (Fischer, 2003; Hajer & Versteeg, 2005; Majone, 1989; Shaw, 2010). Discursive policy analysis conceptualizes the policy process as a social-interactive process of debate, deliberation and argumentation where policy actors make sense of and understand policy issues and solutions through discourse and discursive practices. Embedded in language, discourse is a system of statements which give meaning to social and physical phenomena through discursive practices of production, interpretation, translation, dissemination, and promotion. Discourse has been shown to be a powerful phenomenon, closely linked with

9 knowledge, with the capacity to produce ideational and material effects that are both enabling and constraining (Dryzek, 2013; Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995; Nielsen, 2014; Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008). Discursive power is a distinct form of power that is social and relational and encompasses the complex interplay between knowledge, discourse and mean-making (Metze, 2009). As a meaning-making practice that interprets and makes sense of ‘reality’, discourse is a powerful social force by virtue of its capacity to establish socially and culturally accepted ideas by which individuals and societies understand and therefore act in the world (Metze, 2009). Discursive power is characterized as generative/productive in that it is persuasive and empowering, in contrast to the notion of coercive power of the more materialist discursive approaches of policy studies (Dryzek, 2013; Hajer, 1995; Epstein, 2009; Litfin, 1994). Discursive approaches to policy analysis acknowledge the role of knowledge in the policy process as a source of discursive power (Litfin, 1994; Wesselink et al., 2014). Scientific knowledge, as a reliable body of knowledge that is integral to, but contested within the policy process, is communicated through discourse and therefore subject to framing, interpretation and translation by powerful discursive agents such as scientists and knowledge brokers (Cotton et al., 2014; Epstein, 2008; Litfin, 1994; Ockwell and Rydin, 2006). Discourses are enabling such that they function to open the possibility for new ideas and ways of thinking to reconceptualize interests and identities and recognize new policy opportunities (Davenport and Leitch, 2009). However, discourses are also constraining because as a meaning making process, they function as determinants of what can and cannot be said or thought and therefore close off certain policy options (Litfin, 1994; Palmer, 2010).

Policy issues are comprised of complex, multi-dimensional, interconnected ideas, knowledge, beliefs, assumptions, values and judgements interacting to discursively produce multiple perspectives. Through policy discourse, disparate and diverse policy actors “interpret bits of information and put them together in coherent stories” (Dryzek, 2013, p. 9) or story-lines (Hajer, 1995). Story-lines, which represent simplified ways of understanding and making sense of complex, multi-discursive policy contexts, bring heterogeneous policy actors together in discourse-coalitions that represent intersubjective understanding of a policy issue and its solution(s). Within discourse-coalitions, policy actors actively adopt, translate, adapt, debate and reproduce story-lines, which shape their interests and construct discursive identities or subject- positions (Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995). Discourse-coalitions do not represent shared interests or beliefs; in fact, discourse-coalitions allow policy actors with diverse interests to present a unified

10 voice in support of a policy issue and its solution, despite different interpretations and degrees of understanding of the story-lines that produce and sustain the discourse-coalition (Buchanan, 2013; Lovell, 2008; Nielsen, 2014). The interpretative flexibility of story-lines that gives discourse the power to unite diverse policy actors in discourse-coalitions is conceptualized as intersubjectivity, a social or communal level of meaning and understanding that goes beyond individual interpretations (Gillespie and Cornish, 2009; Laffey & Weldes, 1997). The concepts of powerful, generative, knowledge-based discourses, discursive practices, story-lines, discourse- coalitions, subject-positions, intersubjectivity and discursive agents provide theoretical grounding for understanding and explaining the ideational effects and material impacts reported in my findings. My analyses derive useful insights about how genome research policy decisions and processes were shaped by promise of genomics discourse and identify the complex discursive dynamics between the promise of genomics and the societal benefits sought by research policies.

The sociology of expectations of science and technology is an emerging literature that critically interrogates the promise of science to understand how expectations of science and technology envision a desired future, which mobilizes and motivates the interests, choices and actions of actors to work in the present towards that future (Brown, 2005; Lazarevic & Valve, 2017; Tutton, 2011). The sociology of expectations of science and technology conceptualizes and operationalizes the promise of science as expectations, which are defined as powerful representations of the future that are used as strategic resources to do things in the present (Brown et al., 2003). Scholars have examined how expectations of science and technology shape technological development and innovation (e.g. Alkemade & Suurs, 20012; Berkhout, 2006; Eames et al., 2006; Groves & Tutton, 2013; Lösch, 2006a/b; van Lente & Rip, 1998;) and, more recently, policy and regulation (e.g Berti & Levidow, 2014; Brown, 2003; Brown & Beynon- Jones, 2012; Birch et al., 2014; Glover, 2010; Hedgecoe, 2010; Levidow et al., 2012). Expectations of science and technology are most powerful and contested in emerging fields of science and technology, where uncertainty and risk are substantial, but the promise of impacts and benefits are compelling (Borup et al., 2006; Brown & Michael, 2003). There are three contributions from the sociology of expectations of science and technology that are of particular relevance to understanding how promise of science discourse shapes research policy, each of which is elaborated in Chapter 2: (1) the unique and critical role of promise of science discourses (Borup et al., 2006), (2) the congruity between promise of science discourse and

11 scientific knowledge (Selin, 2007), and (3) the dynamics of promise of science discourses in shaping policy (Birch et al., 2014).

Research Question

The overarching purpose of my thesis was to subject promise of genomics discourse to an in- depth analysis in order explain how it shaped Canadian genomics research policy—the decisions, choices, goals, actions, outcomes, and processes that led to the creation of Genome Canada. My thesis adopted a qualitative, interpretive, single case study approach (Patton, 2015). It examined the three-year period (1997-2000) over which policy actors advocated for a nationally funded and coordinated genome research program that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. I traced how the promise of genomics discourse evolved over three years (1997- 2000), how it was framed and interpreted by policy actors (Epstein, 2008) and how it transformed Canada’s research policy and institutional frameworks (Birch et al., 2014). My thesis, therefore, posed the following research question: How did expectations of genomics, as promise of genomics discourse, shape the creation of Genome Canada?

Story-lines are elements of discourse—simplified narratives—that function to reduce the discursive complexity that characterizes the policy process (Dryzek, 2013; Hajer, 1995). Story- lines provide policy actors with sets of ambiguously linked ideas (e.g. expectations) with which to interpret and to make sense of broader, multi-dimensional, complex policy discourses (Bomberg, 2017; Cotton et al., 2014; Hajer, 1995; Stephan, 2017). While story-lines represent only an aspect or element of broader, more complex discourse, policy actors use and interpret story-lines to make sense of, accept and support the complete discourse, despite having varied interests in and ways of interpreting the story-lines and the whole discourse (Hajer, 1995). Story- lines create a sense of mutuality, positioning policy actors in discourse-coalitions (Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995) within which they unite around and support a specific policy discourse, despite diverse and disparate interests, priorities, goals and mandates. In their discursive analysis of technological change, Jamison and Härd (2003) identified three story-lines that are used to simplify and understand the complexity of technological change discourse. The most dominant story-line was economic innovation, which characterizes technological change “as a process of commercial product development” (p. 81). The second story-line conceives technology as a social construction that is the result of interaction and mediation among various actors. The third

12 story-line adopts a cultural focus that highlights the ethical concerns over new technology and the appropriateness of technology to certain cultural values. Story-lines tend to be vague, ambiguous narratives that appear plausible to policy actors and not necessarily accurate (Hajer, 1995). The power of story-lines is in the interpretative flexibility, providing policy actors with a plurality of possible framings of a policy issue and solution (Smith & Kern, 2009). I adopted Hajer’s (1995) concept of story-lines as expectations of genomics story-lines to analyze and trace the production, evolution, dissemination and mobilization of the promise of genomics discourse.

Both the sociology of expectations of science and technology and the discursive policy analysis literatures have empirically demonstrated a range of ideational and material effects of discourse and expectations of science and technology. Material impacts reported across both literatures include attracting and mobilizing support and funding (Dryzek, 2013; Levidow et al., 2012), coordinating activities (McKean, 2013; Vignola-Gagné, 2014), altering the direction of research (Levidow, et al., 2012; Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008), forming discourse-coalition/networks (Brown & Beynon-Jones, 2012; Hajer, 1995) and transforming institutional and policy frameworks (Birch et al., 2014; Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008). Ideational effects of discourses are socio-cognitive (Hajer, 1995) and include shaping, creating and altering interests (e.g. priorities, goals and preferences) (Dyzek, 2013; Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994; Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008) and identities or subject-positions (Epstein, 2008). Story-lines produce subject-positions from which policy actors gain consequential identities and agency (Epstein, 2008). Subject-positions are discursively constructed identities that policy actors assume by adopting a specific discourse: “. . .a subject-position refers to a position within a discourse” (Epstein, 2008, p. 14). Creating new meanings and changing ways of thinking or cognitive patterns are other ideational effects of discourse reported in the literature (Dryzek, 2013; Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995; Hajer & Versteeg, 2005; Litfin, 1994, Vignola-Gagné, 2014).

In order to answer my research question, I used a qualitative, interpretive single case study design (Patton, 2015; Stake, 1995). The case was bounded by the three-year timeframe (1997- 2000) over which advocacy efforts for a nationally coordinated and funded genomics research program evolved and culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. The production, mobilization and effects of the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics

13 story-lines were examined and analyzed through elite interviews and documentary and archival materials.

Significance of the Study

My thesis addresses how expectations of genomics, as promise of genomics discourses and expectations of genomics story-lines, shaped the policy process and decisions that ultimately led to the creation of Genome Canada, “a new governance model for delivery of research and development" in Canada (Nymark, 2001, p. 2). The delivery of research in Canada has been a key mission of universities for more than 60 years. In fact, the newly formed National Research Council recognized the crucial role for universities in building research capacity in Canada as early as 1917 (NRC, 1959; Thistle, 1966). Since that time Canadian universities have played an increasingly central role in meeting the priorities and expectations of national research policies (Gläser & Laudel, 2016; Jung & Lee, 2014). Research policy has significant implications for universities, especially with the emphasis on policy priorities for knowledge-based economies (Metcalfe, 2008). My research highlights the role that universities as institutions and academic researchers as individuals representing universities played in the research policy process that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. Therefore, an enhanced awareness and understanding of how promise of genomics discourse shaped research policy provides important insights and perspectives on the university-research policy relationship. This research thus contributes to the field of higher education, which has tended to overlook research policy as a site for inquiry (Metcalfe, 2008).

This research represents the first study combining concepts from discursive policy analysis and the sociology of expectations of science and technology as theoretical grounding to understand the promise genomics discourse as a factor in shaping the research policy process. It is also the first in-depth, policy analysis of the origins of Genome Canada. Since being established in 2000, there has been limited scholarly interest in Genome Canada as the focus of analysis as a specific research policy instrument, nor has it been studied as major transformation of Canada’s research system and research policy framework. Scholarly interest in Genome Canada has included more general historical analyses of broader Canadian science policy (Doern et al., 2016), analyses that seek a better understanding of various aspects or factors defining science policy, where Genome Canada is one of several policy examples (Migone & Howlett, 2009; Power et al., 2008; Salazar

& Holbrook, 2007), or evaluation of specific elements of its programs (Kosseim & Chapman, 2011; Phillips, 2005). In a case study of Genome Canada programming, Zhang (2014) assessed the fit between research project funding decisions and organizational goals. My thesis adds to this nascent scholarship on Genome Canada with several original contributions.

This study contributes to the sociology of expectations literature by advancing the nascent discursive conceptualization of expectations of science and technology. If offers new insights on how and through what discursive mechanisms expectations of science and technology—as promissory discourses—are produced and mobilized. It adds to the inchoate ideational dimension of the mostly material understanding of the dynamics of expectations of science and technology in technological development. Furthermore, as an in-depth case study of a discrete policy process using a discursive approach, it adds to the emerging empirical framework of the sociology of expectations of science and technology in policy analysis. Scholars have only recently begun to explore the role and discursive dynamics of expectations of science and technology in the policy process (Berti & Levidow, 2014; Brown & Beynon-Jones, 2012; Birch et al., 2014; Glover, 2010; Hedgecoe, 2010; Levidow et al., 2012). My research fills an identified gap in the literature by foregrounding the broader political context, which has been overlooked due to the field’s primary focus on the technological innovation (Birch et al., 2014; Lave, 2014). My study of the role of promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines in shaping research decisions and processes is new and opens new research opportunities for the sociology of expectations of science and technology scholarship in its traditional focus on technological innovation and its newer interest in policy.

My thesis contributes to the discursive policy analysis literature and the research policy literature by highlighting the unique role and power of promissory discourses about genomics, offering another potential dimension by which the research policy process can be understood. It brings to the foreground, the promise of genomics, a ubiquitous, yet largely unnoticed discourse, and identifies the power of promise of genomics discourse in shaping the ideas, interests, identities, goals, ways of thinking and the agency of policy actors and in transforming institutional and policy frameworks. This study provides empirical input for understanding the different ways that the promise of science is discursively framed and perceived by diverse policy actors. Including the sociology of expectations of science and technology in a discursive, interpretive policy analysis, highlights the significance of the future, scilicet, representations of the future, for

15 understanding the present (Lave, 2014) and for understanding the how policy actors are impelled to think in the future and act in the present.

The research contributes to international scholarship in the sociology of expectations of science and technology, discursive policy analysis and research policy fields by providing a unique Canadian perspective. My analysis of how the promise of genomics discourse shaped the genesis of Genome Canada is a specific regional application of, as well as an addition to, international scholarship in each of the fields. My thesis makes a novel contribution by linking the three areas of research to a particular Canadian context. Moreover, it contributes to Canadian science policy scholarship in responding to the need for Canadian science policy to be “understood in a deeper historical context” (Doern et al., 2016, p. 381). The study adds the Genome Canada story to the story of Canadian science policy. As the first, in-depth study of the origins of Genome Canada, my thesis has curated an extensive corpus of primary data sources and archival materials, not only related to Genome Canada, but to the historical evolution and trajectory of Canadian genome research policy spanning the 15-year period 1985 – 2000. It is my intention to make the collection available to other scholars.

Finally, from a policy context, I expect that impact of my thesis will be largely conceptual- elaborative, such that it adds value and contributes to an existing understanding of the research policy process (Lemay & Sá, 2014). It may serve to heighten the awareness of the complex relationship between the promise of science and the socio-economic impacts sought by research policies. By foregrounding the promise of genomics and explicating how it shaped the research policy process, my research may serve to encourage a more thorough examination of and more reflective response to promissory scientific discourse by the extended policy community (e.g. policy makers, politicians, research funding agencies, researchers, universities, industry, regulators, NGOs, citizens) in course of their engagement with the research policy process and in making research policy decisions.

Chapter 2 Theoretical Foundations

Introduction

The conceptual basis of my research is that expectations of science and technology, such as genomics, are persuasive forms of promise of science discourses that play a pivotal role in shaping the research policy process and constituting research policy. This chapter develops the theoretical and policy basis for the analysis of promise of genomics discourse and identifies key theoretical ideas for understanding the significance of discourse, generally, and the promise of science discourse, particularly, in shaping research policy and the policy process in Canada. The salient theoretical foundations for my research are drawn from two fields of scholarship: discursive policy analysis and the sociology of expectations of science and technology.

The first section of this chapter (Discursive Policy Analysis) reviews the theoretical foundations of the discursive policy analysis literature relevant to my research question. I position discursive policy analysis within the broader policy studies literature, introduce a conceptualization of discourse, describe the common narrative structures of discourse and identify story-lines as the narrative structure adopted for my research. I identify and define the importance of discursive practices as distinct from discourse. Based on my review of the discursive policy analysis literature, I present a discursive conceptualization of policy and the policy process. The concept of discursive power, including the properties of discursive power (knowledge-based, enabling/constraining, productive/generative) and its effects (ideational and material) are described.

Discursive Policy Analysis

Discursive policy analysis (DPA) is a strand of the broader literature of ideational theories of policy that recognizes the central role of language in constituting policy and shaping the policy

16 17 process (Hajer & Versteeg, 2005).2 Discursive policy analysis focuses on the ways in which language as discourse is framed, mobilized, translated and interpreted throughout the policy process (Stone, 2012). Language is the medium through which policy problems, issues, priorities, choices, actions, decisions, solutions and outcomes are articulated, communicated disseminated, discussed, debated, contested and understood (Dryzek, 2013). The way language is framed and interpreted has implications for policy; how a policy issue is understood, or a policy solution accepted is extremely sensitive to the language used in framing a policy issue and describing the preferred solution (Dryzek, 2013; Shaw and Greenhalgh, 2008; Stone, 2012).

Policy as Discourse

At its most basic level, language can be conceptualized as discourse. While there is a plurality of definitions and conceptualizations of discourse in the DPA literature, a definition of discourse can be summarized as: “an ensemble of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena” (Hajer & Versteeg, 2005, p. 177), which are articulated through “sets of linguistic and rhetorical strategies embedded in a network of social relations” (Litfin, 1994, p. 3) among policy actors and thereby “provide ways of talking about, forms of knowledge and conduct associated with a particular topic, social activity or institutional site in society” (Hall, 1997, p. 4). Discourse is a historically, culturally and politically contingent system of representation that makes possible the articulation and circulation of more or less coherent sets of meaning about a particular topic. Discourses are ways of talking about, perceiving, forming and making sense of ideas, beliefs, norms, interests, values, topics, objects and phenomena (Dryzek, 2013) and therefore establish how we think, respond and act in relation to our understanding of those things (Phillips et al., 2004). Discourse is how ideas are communicated, mobilized and translated between and among policy actors (Smiley, 2016). Discourse defines, shapes and frames policy issues, priorities and solutions (Dryzek, 2013;

2 Various language-based approaches to policy and the policy process, in addition to discursive policy analysis, have been reported in the scholarly literature, including argumentative policy analysis (Fischer & Forester, 1993; Fischer & Gottweis, 2012; Gottweis, 2006; Vignola-Gagné, 2014; Weiss, 1991), interpretative policy analysis (Yannow, 2007), hermeneutic-based policy analysis (Wilder & Howlett, 2014; Legano & Leong, 2012), rhetoric policy analysis (Finlayson, 2007; Gottweis, 2006; Majone 1989), and narrative policy analysis (Jones & McBeth, 2010; Roe, 1994). While there are subtle differences among them; all share similar theoretical grounding, as well as overlapping definitions of key concepts (Gottweis, 2006). I consider all within a rubric of linguistic-based theory of policy and draw from the entire range of the literature for this review.

Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994; Rein and Schon, 1996; Stone, 2012). Discourses are representations of meaning that are open to multiple framings, interpretations and translations, such that the same discourse can be understood, adopted, supported and accepted by diverse policy actors and collectives with divergent interests and goals (Hajer, 1995; Dryzek, 2013). Discourse is therefore more than ideas and language; it involves discursive structures and practices and exerts a form of discursive power that is both enabling and constraining giving it the capacity to produce or generate ideational and material effects or change (Dryzek, 2013; Litfin, 1994; Phillips, et al., 2004; Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008). The power of discourse is a productive rather than oppressive type of power that is exerted through discourses not owned or controlled (Epstein, 2008; Litfin, 1994), but used by policy actors “engaged in processes of argumentation and deliberation to convince other political actors of the plausibility and legitimacy of their ideas” (Braun, 1999, p. 24).

Policy discourses rely substantively on narrative structures, such as story-lines (Hajer, 1995) scenarios, arguments, non-stories, counter-stories and meta-narratives (Roe, 1994), causal stories (Stone, 2012), rhetoric (Finlayson, 2004; Finlayson, 2007; Gottweis, 2006; Raymond & Olive, 2009) and frames (Rein & Schon, 1996). That much of the way we think, simplify and make sense of the world is expressed in narrative form has become an important concept in discourse- based theory of policy. Contemporary policy issues are characterized by uncertainty, complexity and polarization, which can only be articulated through multiple discourses, giving policy and the policy process an inter-discursive and often intractable nature (Dryzek, 2013; Hajer, 1995; Roe, 1994). Policy narratives simplify discursive complexity, bringing a discursive order to the policy process (Vignola-Gagné, 2014). Often referred to as stories that “underwrite and stabilize the assumptions for policymaking” (Roe, 1994, p. 34), policy narratives are the way in which the policy discourses that are used to frame, characterize and define a policy issue are interpreted, translated and connected to form a coherent, plausible whole—a story of a policy problem, its implications, the solution and the outcomes (Dryzek, 2013). A policy narrative is a discursive representation of a sequential combination of the ideas that discursively frame a policy issue from its definition through to the potential outcomes of the proposed solution (Stone, 2012). Policy narratives typically incorporate an empirical, a normative and a performative element, describing or explaining the way things (empirical) are, proposing what should be done (normative) and how to do it (performative) (Birch et al., 2014). Roe (1994) argues that narratives have “the objective of getting their hearers to assume or do something” (p. 37). Policy

19 narratives connect policy actors in ‘networks of meaning’, establishing relationships, orienting and mobilizing policy actors in pursuit of a policy goal (Gottweis, 1998).

Discursive policy analysis conceptualizes policy and the policy process as an on-going practice of discursive negotiation among policy actors with diverse, often competing and contradictory, goals, values and interests (Fischer and Forester, 1993; Stone, 2012). The deliberation and debate that characterize the policy process involve multiple discourses all intended to persuade policy actors of the ‘true’ nature of policy issues and the virtue and necessity of a particular political course of action (Finlayson, 2004; Gottweis, 2006; Majone, 1989; Stone, 2012). The continual discursive interaction among policy actors is a process of meaning-making, a process of making sense of some natural and/or social phenomenon and of persuading others that it is the best and only interpretation of ‘reality’. Discursive policy analysis acknowledges the rhetorical, argumentative, interpretive, narrative and advocacy nature of the policy process (Fischer and Gottweis, 2013; Hajer & Versteeg, 2005; Majone, 1989; Stone, 2012). As an alternative to more rational-based theories of policy, discursive policy analysis challenges what has been referred to as the scientification of politics (Hoppe, 1999), where scientific knowledge and rigorous analytical methods are used to minimize (even eliminate) the influence of ‘political power’, the interest-infused, value-based, ambiguities and paradoxes of politics and instead provide objective, unbiased, true assessments of political reality and definitive answers or solutions for addressing social and political problems (Stone, 2012). Discursive policy analysis on the other hand, explicitly brings politics back into policy making, recognizing that public policy is a statement of the social values of a society and based on value judgements informed only partially by objective knowledge (Stone, 2012). Policy decisions are rarely the outcome of rational analyses by a single government actor, but the result of an argumentative process that takes place within a public community (a polis), where policy actors debate over ideas in the public interest (Braun, 1999; Litfin, 1994; Stone, 2012). The policy process is characterized by multiple, competing interpretations of policy problems/issues, solutions and implementation. Through various communicative practices policy discourse becomes “subject to a plurality of interpretations” (Lejano and Leong, 2012), which allows heterogeneous policy actors to unite around a policy discourse in a discourse-coalition (Hajer, 1995), even if some policy actors do not fully agree with the framing of the problem, while others may not fully understand or support the preferred solution (Majone, 1980). Levidow and others (2012) demonstrate the multi-

20 interpretability of policy discourses with a comparison of competing visions of the EU’s knowledge-based bio-economy policy metanarrative: Claiming to promote ‘sustainable agriculture’, each vision appropriates and recasts key terms in its own image. An agroecological vision originally promoted holistic approaches as mixed farms integrating crops and animals, while a life sciences vision has recast ‘holistic’ as converging technologies to integrate agriculture with other industrial sectors via global value chains. Conversely, a life sciences vision has promoted ‘sustainable intensification’, while an agroecological vision has recast this as ‘eco-functional intensification’, i.e. intensifying ecological processes. Likewise, global business lobbies had long promoted eco-efficiency as a lower input–output ratio in capital-intensive production processes for global commodity production, while an agroecological vision has recast eco-efficiency as short-loop nutrient recycling by farmers. Analyzed as imaginaries, these rival visions likewise give different meanings to the same key terms – knowledge, biological resources and economy. They diverge over diagnoses of unsustainable agriculture, societal challenges, remedies through technoscientific knowledge and thus the aims of a knowledge-based bioeconomy. (p. 61)

Discursive policy analysis has been quite effectively used for science-based policies to unpack the role of scientific discourses in shaping policy and the policy process, including choices, decisions, actions and outcomes (Bomberg, 2017; Dryzek, 2013; Hajer, 1995; Jamison & Härd, 2003; Litfin, 1994; Lovell, 2008; McKean, 2013; Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008; Stephan, 2017; Vignola-Gagné, 2014).

For the purposes of my thesis, I adopt the narrative concept of ‘story-lines’ (Hajer, 1995). Story- lines are shortcuts—abridged versions of complex discourses that allow policy actors to make sense of even more complex multi-discursive policy issues. Story-lines have proven to be an effective conceptualization of narrative structures of policy discourse, well suited to the discursive analysis of complex policy issues (Bomberg, 2017; Cotton, et al., 2014; Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995; Jamison & Härd, 2003; McKean, 2013). Hajer (1995) introduced the concept of story-lines to trace the evolution of environmental discourses that shaped acid rain regulations in the UK and the Netherlands through specific narratives that he calls story-lines: “narratives on

21 social reality through which elements from many different domains are combined and that provide actors with a set of symbolic references that suggest a common understanding” (Hajer, 1995, p. 62). As tools of persuasion, story-lines have the capacity to shift interests and therefore support in both public debate and the policy process (Stephan, 2017). Epstein (2008) adopts story-lines, along with discourse-coalitions, as “conceptual tools to analyze the anti-whaling discourse” (p. 20). McKean (2013) uses story-lines to study the role of expectations in the development of the United Kingdom Air Quality Strategy, identifying the various story-lines that defined and characterized the discourses, expectations and visions in various iterations and amendments of the strategy over a 10-year period. Jamison & Härd (2003) adopt story-lines in their analysis of discourses of technological change, showing how the widely accepted but abstract, complex social concept of technology is actually a composite that “combines a wide range of quite different and even contradictory meanings into one all-encompassing term” (p. 81).

Story-lines create the semblance of unity among policy actors within the multi-discursive environment that characterizes the policy process, by clustering knowledge, positioning actors and creating coalitions (Hajer, 1995). Separate elements of a story-line appear to have similar ideational notions or discursive structures that suggest the elements belong together, making the story-line not just plausible but ‘make sense’ or ‘sound right’ (Bomberg, 2017; Hajer, 1995). The perception that a story-line ‘sounds right’ is more than cognitive; it is also based on the trust in and perceived credibility of those producing and promoting the story-line, the practices with which the story-line is produced and the fit with or acceptability to policy actors’ own interests (Hajer, 1995). Story-lines bring policy actors together within a discourse-coalition even though there may be multiple interpretations of the story-line and little in common among actors (Cotton et al., 2014; Lovell 2008).

Within a discursive conceptualization, policy and the policy process are shaped and mediated by discourse produced, mobilized and disseminated through discursive practices. Discourse is quite impossible without discursive practices (Dryzek, 2013; Epstein, 2008; Schmidt, 2010). Such a statement may appear tautological; however, the entangled and irreducible relationship between discourse and discursive practices is not always acknowledged in certain strands of the policy studies literature or the sociology of expectations. Often, the role of discursive practices is missing. Discursive practices are interactive acts of communication through which discourses are

22 produced, reproduced, disseminated and interpreted by and among policy actors (Ockwell & Rydin, 2006; Schmidt, 2008; Vignola-Gagné, 2014). Such communicative practices include both spoken and written forms of discourse (Adger et al., 2001; Fairclough, 1992). Discourse can take a variety of written forms, including reports, policy documents, peer-reviewed publications (e.g. editorials, reviews), media articles, memos, emails, letters, meeting minutes and manuscripts (Vignola-Gagné, 2014). Spoken forms of discourse include conference presentations, conversations, policy briefings, interviews, speeches and parliamentary debates and deputations. It is through both spoken and written practices that a discourse is produced, disseminated, mobilized and becomes accepted and/or adopted by policy actors.

Discursive Power

As with policy studies in general, power is a key aspect of discourse policy analysis. As a meaning-making practice that interprets and makes sense of reality, discourse is a powerful social force (Metze, 2009). A discursive approach to policy recognizes the complex interplay between power, knowledge and meaning-making inherent in the continual discursive negotiations of the policy process (Carstensen and Schimdt, 2016; Epstein, 2008; Nielsen, 2014; Smiley, 2016). Power is embodied and embedded within discourses, situated in the meanings and interpretations that become socially and culturally accepted as reality and established as the way to think, speak and act (Motion and Leitch, 2009; Litfin, 1994; Stone, 2012). Discursive power is defined by non-material elements such as legitimacy, consensus, access to knowledge and authority (Motion and Leitch, 2009; Litfin, 1994), credibility, acceptability and trust (Hajer, 1995; Stephan, 2017), and discursive ontology (Dryzek, 2013). A discursive concept of power therefore is social and relational, rather than physical and material as something possessed by policy actors to be wielded in efforts to control and coerce (Epstein, 2008). The salience of discursive power is what it does—its effects, rather than what it is—its physical or material properties. Similar to other nonmaterial entities, the effects of discursive power are more readily perceived than discursive power itself (Litfin, 1994). The concept of discursive power that emerges from the discursive policy analysis literature is comprised of five key elements: (1) discursive power is knowledge-based (Litfin, 1994; Stephan, 2017), (2) discursive power is generative and productive (Dryzek, 2013; Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995), (3) discursive power is enabling and constraining (Epstein, 2008; Lovell, 2008; Shaw and Greenhalgh, 2008), (4) discursive power has ideational and material effects (Bomberg, 2017; Dryzek, 2013; Epstein,

2008; Litfin, 1994; Lovell, 2008; Stephan, 2017) and (5) the discursive power of key policy actors: scientists and knowledge brokers (Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994; Vignola-Gagné, 2014; Wesselink et al., 2013).

Discursive power is knowledge-based.

The role of knowledge in the policy process makes it an integral part of any conception of discursive power. Knowledge has a dual role in contemporary understandings of policy and the policy process, which represent manifestations of the promise of science. First, with the emphasis on evidence-based policy over the past several decades, knowledge has become the primary basis for informing policy-decisions (Douglas, 2009; Nutley et al., 2007; Wesselink et al., 2013; Wesselink et al., 2014). Scientific knowledge is expected to impart an objective, rational element to a process believed to be mired in irrational values, biased special interests and coercive power. Knowledge, on the other hand, is widely accepted to overcome political uncertainty and lead to optimal policy solutions by providing an objective assessment of reality. Science (truth) is expected to keep political power out of policy-making. The second role of knowledge in the policy process is its place in the knowledge-based economy. Since the 1980s the knowledge-based economy has dominated much of the broader economic policy discourse. Increasingly, knowledge has been tied to economic growth and development; it has become a source of competitive advantage much like land and labour of more traditional models of economic growth and development (Litfin, 1994; Martin, 2018; Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008). The widely accepted assumption that underpins the concept of the knowledge-based economy argues that countries adept at knowledge production will gain significant economic competitive advantage and considerable wealth and prosperity. Research, science, technology and innovation are the key drivers of a knowledge-based economy. Many jurisdictions have adapted their policies to re-position their research, science and innovation systems to produce and transfer economically relevant knowledge (Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008).

As the basis for policy decisions and as a putative source of economic growth and prosperity, scientific knowledge plays an undeniably significant role in policy and the policy process. However, the power of scientific knowledge does not come, entirely, from its objective, rational portrayal of truth and reality, but also in its discursive nature (Litfin, 1994; Palmer, 2010). In understanding a knowledge-based concept of discursive power, the social aspect of science must be considered along with its epistemic dimension. While scientific knowledge is our best means

24 of making sense of, understanding and intervening in the natural world (Hacking, 1983; 1999; Douglas, 2009), it is also a social activity and therefore a discursive product of power relations (Cotton et al., 2014; Finlayson, 2007; Kuhn, 2012; Litfin, 1994). The peer review system is an example of the power relations that define science. Scientific knowledge is produced and disseminated through language—argumentative and rhetorical communicative activities. As discourse, scientific knowledge is open to interpretation and translation. The acceptance of new scientific claims is not achieved by data and evidence alone, but through persuasive arguments that are infused with value judgements and subject to institutional legacies and norms of the various scientific disciplines (Majone, 1989; Weiss, 1991). While the social, value-infused, discursive nature of science is an important dimension in building a concept of discursive power, it would be equally as misleading to deny the epistemic successes of science. Ian Hacking (1983) argues for scientific realism, not on the basis of representation (theory), but as intervention: “We shall count as real what we can use to intervene in the world to affect something else, or what the world can use to affect us” (p. 146). Hacking’s (1983) definition of scientific reality is well suited to knowledge-based discursive power because it positions the power of scientific knowledge in terms of both the natural and social world and highlights the interdependence between them. A concept of knowledge-based discursive power therefore reflects the interpretive, social and epistemic dimensions of scientific knowledge (Litfin, 1994).

Discursive power is generative and productive.

As knowledge-based, discursive power does not align with the characteristics or features of conventional notions of power that rely on material, physical forms (e.g. military or economic) and involve aspects of dominance, control and manipulation. Instead, knowledge-based discursive power is characterized by its capacity to ‘produce’ or ‘generate’ rather than dominate or control (Epstein, 2008). As a generative/productive form of power, knowledge-based discursive power is not a weapon wielded by powerful actors, but a relational phenomenon defined by notions of access to information, legitimacy, persuasiveness, credibility and consensus, which invoke more positive influences that are empowering and capacity-giving (Béland, 2010; Dryzek, 2013; Litfin, 1994). For example, when the governing council of a federal research granting agency (both of which are generally considered to be ‘powerful’ entities comprised of ‘powerful’ individuals with the capacity to exert power in their own interests) is persuaded by compelling discourse to adopt a new way of thinking about how

25 medical research should be funded, can it be said they were dominated or coerced? In cases where persuasive arguments based on evidence compel policy actors to adapt their interests or perceive new ways of interpreting policy issues, the dominant framing of power associated with coercion and control does not make sense. As productive and generative, knowledge-based, discursive power reaches beyond simple charges of discourse being used or adopted by powerful vested interests to coerce policy actors or manipulate the policy process (Laffey & Weldes, 1997). Instead, discourses are powerful due to their capacity to produce representations of reality (objects, subjects and entities) through a web of social relations (Laffey & Weldes, 1997), to generate collaboration among policy actors (Béland, 2010) and to produce ideational and material effects (Wesselink et al., 2013). Story-lines have the power to generate new policy discourses, such as alternative framings of or new solutions to the policy issue (Lovell, 2008). Such discursive effects of story-lines demonstrate the empowering capacity of discourse that gives policy actors new ways to argue or support a policy discourse (Hajer, 1995).

Discursive power is both enabling and constraining

As productive, generative and constitutive, discourse is enabling and empowering—opening opportunities for policy actors to interact, conceive new ideas, ways of thinking, or policy decisions; but discourses also limit the range of ideas, meanings and arguments that are reasonable and acceptable (Carstensen, 2011; Epstein, 2008; Feindt and Oels, 2005; Martin, 2015a). Laffey and Weldes (1997) explain this opposing property of discursive power: As capacities, [discourses] enable; they make certain kinds of action, and ways of being in the world, possible insofar as they are 'mechanisms' by which meaning is produced. . .At the same time, because making some kinds of meaning and action possible may preclude other types of meaning and action, they also constrain. (p. 210)

Discourse limits the range of conceivable policy solutions (Raymond & Olive, 2009). Moreover, according to Litfin (1994) such constraining powers make discourses precursors to policy outcomes: “As determinants of what can and cannot be thought, discourses limit the range of policy options, thereby by serving as pre-cursors to policy outcomes” (Litfin, 1994, p. 37). For example, Buchanan (2013) demonstrated how environmental discourses of biodiversity conservation in the Ecuador rain forest defined the boundaries of expression used by local claim- makers, which in turn defined the options for environmental policy and control over the

“determination of the use and exploitation of their natural living environment” (p. 6). Scholars have highlighted the importance of framing in giving discourse its constraining power (Carstensen, 2011; Hajer, 1995; Laffey & Weldes, 1997; Litfin, 1994; Stone, 2012). Framing places boundaries on meaning and interpretation, shaping what is and is not conceived as possible within policy (Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008). According to Carstensen (2011), the way in which a new policy idea is framed “can significantly affect the range of other policy ideas it can be combined with in the future” (p. 604). A new idea must be linked to existing ideas and broader discourses in order for the new idea to make sense to policy actors. In the process of establishing new meaning, elements of existing ideas are recombined, which “has the obvious consequence of creating ideational path dependence” (Carstensen, 2011, p. 605). Discursive path dependence places limitations on the range of meanings actors can construct (Gale, 1999).

Discourse has ideational and material effects.

The fundamental thesis of discursive policy analysis is that “discourses do matter exactly because they do things” (Wesselink et al., 2013, p. 7). With a conceptualization of knowledge- based discursive power as generative, productive, enabling and constraining, the theoretical basis is established for exploring the effects of discursive power or for identifying what discourses do (Epstein, 2008; Wesselink et al., 2013). The impacts of discourse can be observed in government policies, legislation and regulations, and institutions, as well as socially and culturally (Dryzek, 2013). The effects of knowledge-based discursive power can be classified as ideational and material.

Ideational effects of discourse.

Ideational effects are described as cognitive, epistemic, emotional or psychological, having a basis in defining and shaping beliefs, world views, paradigms, normative frameworks, values and norms. Ideational effects of knowledge-based discursive power include altering existing or creating new interests and identities or subject-positions, establishing new meanings that allow new ways of thinking or cognitive patterns, and generating intersubjectivity.

What is important to understand about ideational effects of discourse is that discursive power does not ‘belong’ to pre-constituted policy actors, but that it constitutes them; their interests and identities (Eleveld, 2016; Epstien, 2008; Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994; Smith & Kern, 2009). Discourse, interests and identities are said to be mutually constitutive (Eleveld, 2016). Discursive

27 policy analysis recognizes a recursive relationship between discourses and interests and identities (Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008; Smith & Kern, 2009), such that policy actors’ interests and identities are constituted through discourses, which are produced, interpreted and disseminated by policy actors, who are not completely autonomous, but constrained by discourse (Fisher, 2003; Smith & Kern, 2009). DPA regards interests and discourse as interdependent; interests are not taken as given, but constantly reproduced and re-constituted through discourse (Hajer, 1995). Discourse defines and shapes interests through framing of policy issues and solutions such that policy actors come to perceive formerly unrealized possibilities (Stone, 2012). It is through producing, interpreting and translating discourses that policy actors perceive their own interests (Hay, 2011).

The literature has demonstrated how discourses constitute and shape policy actors’ interests (goals, preferences and values) (Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994; Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008). Litfin’s (1994) analysis of ozone discourses demonstrates that policy actors’ interests are shaped by the knowledge and ideas that they accept. Epstein (2008) offers a compelling example of how anti-whaling discourse motivated the West to remain “interested in whaling well after Western commercial interest had abandoned the trade, because its interest was framed by an entrenched whaling discourse” (p. 18). Discourses can motivate actors beyond their own self- interest to act in the interests of the public good for moral, ethical and social reasons (Schmidt, 2008). In the case of science-based policy involving emerging fields of science, which are characterized by considerable levels of uncertainty, actors often have vague, contradictory, unstable and nascent interests (Hajer, 1995). Scientific discourses can infuse and establish meanings about new scientific knowledge before policy actors’ interests are established and before perspectives about possible scientific or technological outcomes can be formed (Chiles, 2013), thus shaping policy actors’ preferences, goals and interests.

Like interests, discourse also has the power to shape identities, which in the DPA literature are generally conceptualized as subject-positions (Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995; Gottweis, 2006).3 Policy actors do not have fixed identities, but are constantly re-positioned through discursive

3 The concept of identities is associated with the more materialist-based approaches to policy analysis and are defined as “the historically constructed ideas that individuals or organizations have about who they are vis-à-vis others” (Campbell, 2002, p. 24). Discursive policy analysis adopts a less ‘fixed’ or stable notion of identity.

28 exchanges (Hajer, 1995) and are conceived of as situated subjects within a discourse (Eleveld, 2016). Discursive policy analysis generally takes a de-centred approach to the role of policy actors, focusing on discursive practices in a social-interactive, argumentative process (Eleveld, 2013; Epstein, 2008; Litfin, 1994; Hajer, 1995) where by policy actors’ identities are discursively produced and constituted as ‘subject-positions’ from which they actively participate in the production, transformation and dissemination of discourse and thereby become discursive agents (Dryzek, 2013; Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994; Stone, 2012), taking on new roles and identities as they identify with, imagine and make sense of discourses that present new ideas, meanings and knowledge (Eleveld, 2016). Subject-positions are conceptualized as a “position within a discourse” (Epstein, 2008, p. 14). In speaking or adopting a particular discourse, policy actors mark themselves as the subject constructed by the discourse (Epstein, 2008). Subject-positions are adopted or occupied when policy actors engage in a specific discourse (Epstein, 2008) or when policy actors are framed by other policy actors in specific ways or with specific identities in a discourse (Hajer, 1995; Stone, 2012). The concept of subject-position is important for making a distinction between ‘policy actor’ and the ‘subject/agent’ of a discourse, which Epstein, (2008) contends gives policy actors discursively produced identities and agency. Policy actors gain identity through the subject-position constructed by discourse, which also defines the means of their agency—the ways in which they can engage with, interpret, produce and transform discourse and thereby effect change (Epstein, 2008). In an analysis of the emergence of translational research as a policy priority in the U.S. and Germany, Vignola-Gagné (2014) demonstrated the discursive construction of the clinician- scientist subject-position as privileged translational investigators, who were best suited to ensure the success of the nascent field of translational research, which was considered essential for addressing the paradox of the promise of biomedical science: “the realization that the massive investment made in the genomics research platforms are not leading to major innovations in clinical practice by themselves” (p. 96). The clinician-scientist as privileged translational research leader subject-position resonated with policy-makers, as well as other policy actors, which led to changes in research policy and institutional practices that addressed the needs of clinician-scientists as a means of improving the productivity of biomedical research (Vignola- Gagné, 2014).

In the face of new discourses or existing discourse framed in new ways, discourses construct new meanings, which allow policy actors to see things in a different way or to realize that things are

29 not necessarily how they seem (Eleveld, 2016; Finlayson, 2007). Such new perspectives create possibilities for new ways of understanding or making sense of policy issues and solutions. Both Hajer (1995) and Litfin (1994) demonstrate how the ‘precautionary principle’ was introduced into environmental discourse and changed the way that scientists perceived and reported their research results and the way that policy-makers made sense of environmental policy issues, such as ozone depletion and acid rain. The new concept of ‘precautionary principle’ changed the way that policy actors thought about environmental governance and regulation, which caused a shift from remedial environmental policy to anticipatory policy. In cases where new scientific knowledge is introduced, discourses may alter existing cognitive commitments, which in turn influence values and beliefs, facilitating new ways of thinking (Hajer, 1995). An important aspect of the ideational effect of creating new meaning and changing the way of thinking is the potential for marginalized or subordinate discourses to gain attention, overcome so called ‘powerful vested interests’ and become a dominant discourse (Cotton et al., 2014; Levidow et al., 2012; Litfin, 1994; Raymond & Olive, 2009). In comparing two competing visions of an EU knowledge-based bioeconomy master narrative, Levidow and others (2012) show that although the agroecology vision was a marginalized vision relative to the dominant life sciences vision of the bioeconomy, the agroecology vision has influenced and shaped EU research and innovation policy such that agroecology-based research receives funding and is increasingly promoted within EU research policy.

Discourse is powerful because of its multi-interpretability (Dryzek, 2013; Stone 2012) or interpretive flexibility (Eames et al., 2006; Schyfter & Calvert, 2015). This multi-, flexible interpretability of discourse gives rise to a salient effect of discourses—intersubjectivity. While there is a plurality of definitions and conceptualizations of intersubjectivity in the scholarly literature, Gillespie and Cornish (2009) adopt what they call an inclusive definition, conceptualizing intersubjectivity “as the variety of relations between people’s perspectives” (p. 19). Whether explicitly referenced or tacitly observed and described, intersubjectivity is a prominent phenomenon in discursive policy analysis (Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995; Laffey & Weldes, 1995; Litfin, 1994; Schmidt, 2008). The intersubjectivity of discourse can be understood as the capacity for widespread acceptance of a discourse across of range of interpretations, interests, beliefs, goals and understandings. Discourses are meaningful to policy actors for various reasons. Intersubjectivity of a discourse connotes that there is a common basis (e.g. a set of story-lines) around which diverse policy actors unite to advocate and support the discourse.

The subjective interpretations and understandings of policy actors ‘inter’-act in such a way that they are unified by the discourse, despite their differences. Intersubjectivity goes beyond a notion of shared or collective understanding, it cannot be reduced or attributed to individual interpretations of a discourse (Laffey & Weldes, 1997). Intersubjectivity is instead the melding, merging and convergence of multiple interpretations, translations and understandings of discourse over time and represents a higher order discourse that despite the involvement of diverse, heterogenous policy actors, becomes widely accepted, adopted and promoted. Intersubjectivity is the basis for cooperation and consensus among policy actors and therefore plays a central role in shaping the policy process (Hajer, 1995; Laffey & Weldes, 1997; Litfin, 1994; Stone, 2012).

Material effects of discourse.

While discourse is largely considered to be nonmaterial, its effects are concrete and tangible (Schmidt, 2008). In some ways it is difficult to establish a clear distinction between ideational and material effects of discourse. We could say that ideational effects relate to what policy actors say in spoken or written form; while material effects are what policy actors do in response to discourse. While, speaking and writing are things that are done by policy actors, it is the content (ideas, visions, values and interests) of the discourse that constitutes the ideational. Material effects can be said to represent structural changes, such as the formation of discourse-coalitions, transformation of institutional or policy frameworks (Birch et al., 2014), coordination of activities and mobilizing funding and investments.

In DPA, politics and the policy process are conceptualized as existing and evolving in a public community—a polis—where the pursuit of not only individual self-interest, but also the mutually shared, intersubjective goals in the public interest, is an on-going discursive debate in which policy actors advocate for a specific course of action through various story-lines (Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995; Stone, 2012). Story-lines draw policy actors together into what Hajer (1995) calls discourse-coalitions, which are “the ensemble of a set of story lines, the actors that utter these story lines, and the practices that conform to these story lines, all organized around a discourse” (Hajer, 1993, p. 47). The formation of discourse-coalitions is a powerful material effect of discourse that has been empirically demonstrated. Epstein (2008) argued that the anti-whaling discourse “yielded new and improbable discourse-coalitions around the issue both at the international level and in key jurisdictions, such as the United States” (p. 94). The anti-whaling

31 discourse was directly linked to the creation of a discourse-coalition of environmental nonstate actors and state actors that had a profound influence at the international level in shaping the evolution of the International Whaling Commission (Epstein, 2008). In studying the argumentative practices of clinician-scientists concerned about the lack of institutional support for their profession, Vignola-Gagné (2014) demonstrated how the policy narrative promoted by these unlikely policy actors was adopted by policy-makers creating a “relatively stable discourse coalition, which engaged in institutional reform and further mobilisation of other biomedical actors” (p. 100).

Policy reform represents what might be called the pinnacle of materials effects of discourse. Implicating discourse in changes to policy or institutional frameworks is the fundamental basis of discursive policy analysis. There are myriad examples in the literature that empirically demonstrate the power of discourse to effect changes across a range scales, including international (Epstein, 2008; Litfin, 1994), national (Bomberg, 2017; Lovell, 2008), regional (Ockwell & Rydin, 2006; Stephan, 2017) and scope, such as environment policy (Dryzek, 2013), acid rain regulation (Hajer, 1995), low energy housing policy (Lovell, 2008) and shale gas policy (Cotton et al., 2014; Stephan, 2017). Litfin (1994) argued that a complex dynamic between scientific knowledge and political power was implicated in the international agreement on ozone regulation, which allowed for a subordinate discourse of precaution to instrumentally influence the final negotiations and subsequent amendments of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Hajer (1995) provided a detailed account of how environmental discourses shaped the differential policy responses to acid rain in the UK and Netherlands. The rise of the global anti-whaling discourse has been implicated by Epstein (2008) in a profound shift in many countries from supporting whaling as a national economic driver to implementing global and national regulations against whaling, as well as policy measures to protect whales. Dryzek (2013) provided a comprehensive analysis of the interface between environmental discourses and politics. Using a framework for assessing the effects of discourses, Dryzek (2013) identified the effects on government policies, effects on institutions and the social and cultural impacts of four major environmental discourses: global limits and their denial, solving environmental problems, the quest for sustainability and green radicalism.

In smaller scale studies, several scholars have focused on more targeted research policy reforms linked to discourse (Vignola-Gagné, 2014; Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008; Wesselink et al., 2014).

Vignola-Gagné (2014) used a case study of the argumentative practices of clinician-scientists in the United States and Germany, who established a policy narrative advocating for increased institutional support of their profession on the basis that it would solve the problem of poor innovation performance in the biomedical sciences. The discourse identified the lack of support for clinician-scientists as a barrier to biomedical translational research, which was a critical success factor for bridging the innovation gap between basic biomedical research (e.g., genomics) and clinical innovations (Vignola-Gagné, 2014). In both the United States and Germany, policy makers not only accepted the discourse, but adopted it as their own policy discourse in making policy decisions related to funding and coordination of translational research. A discourse-coalition formed around the story-line that increased support for clinician- scientists would lead to productivity improvements in translational research. Clinician-scientists were positioned as “privileged coordinators and leaders of TR networks” (Vignola-Gagné, 2014, p. 103). As the broader translational research policy narrative became a global narrative, clinician-scientists were increasingly linked as the solution to the innovation gap between the laboratory and clinic (Vignola-Gagné, 2014). Various institutional reforms at the United States National Institutes of Health and to lesser extent the German federal government, as well as individual institutions reflect the influence of this discourse. For example, in 2005 the NIH new vision for translational and clinical science included establishing 60 Clinical and Translational Science Awards, which acknowledged the central role of clinician-scientists in translational research with specialized training programs and an emphasis on “well-recognised career pathways” (Vignola-Gagné, 2014, p. 101) for clinician-scientists. Shaw and Greenhalgh (2008) report that primary care research in the United Kingdom has been transformed by a broader health research policy that is influenced by a knowledge-based economy discourse: “By situating primary care research in relation to discourse on the knowledge-based economy, health research policy has re-positioned primary care research less as an independent enterprise and more as a strategic resource and ‘population laboratory’ for large-scale clinical trials” (p. 2516). Shaw and Greenhalgh (2008) argue that framing health research policy within a vision of contemporary science contributing to economic growth and international competitiveness has objectified primary care research “as an economic and marketing resource, facilitating the recruitment of patients to clinical trials. . .” (p. 2514), forcing it to comply with this discourse thus reshaping primary care research.

The power of discursive agents: scientists and knowledge brokers.

The discourse-centred approach to power taken above is important for establishing the power of discourse as distinct from that of discursive agents; that is “not merely as the actors’ appendage, but as a key factor of change” (Epstein, 2008, p. 93). Another important feature of the knowledge-based discursive power described above that is relevant to understanding the power of discursive agents is the recursive relationship between discursive power and discursive agents (Smith & Kern, 2009). While discourses partially constitute discursive agents, discourse is produced, disseminated, translated, promoted and mobilized by discursive agents through a discursive agentic power that is defined as the capacity to act independently of social structures to bring about change (Campbell, 2009). The relationship between discourse and interests and subject-positions is recursive such that policy actors realize their interests (preferences, goals and values) and subject-positions, relative to the specific policy issue, through discourse, but discourses cannot exist without individuals or groups of actors producing, promoting, disseminating and debating them (Schmidt, 2008; Smith & Kern, 2007). On the other hand, policy actors qua discursive agents are not free to use any discourse. They are constrained by discourse in what they can think and say. While discursive agents may have discursive legitimacy (Phillips et al., 2004), “they do not function as autonomous agents wielding the power of discourse on behalf of transparent interests”; they are “seen as the effects rather than the fountains of power” (Litfin, 1994, p. 23). The power of discourse reaches beyond individuals and individual speech acts (Litfin, 1994). Discourses are social, intersubjective forms of practice rather than collective or shared (Laffey & Weldes, 1997). Policy actors can ‘use’ discourses, interpret them within the context of their interests, world views and goals, but individual policy actors are unable the control the higher order meanings of discourse (Carstensen, 2011).

The power of discursive agents remains knowledge-based due to the already described importance of knowledge in the policy process, particularly for research policy. Furthermore, the power of discursive agents is grounded in an intersubjectivity “that agents both draw on to give meaning to their material and social circumstances and battle over to affect what. . .discourses are deemed viable” (Carstensen & Schmidt, 2016, p. 323). Importantly, the power of discursive agents is not limited to those at the top of the policy hierarchy but recognizes agents throughout the policy hierarchy as powerful (Carstensen & Schmidt, 2016). In the context of a discursive

34 analysis of research policy, such as that undertaken in my thesis there are two types of discursive agents are relevant to my research question: scientists and knowledge-brokers.

Scientists as discursive agents.

The intensified reliance on science, the increasing complexity of science and the rapidly accelerating pace of discovery and emergence of new fields of science have, collectively, created the need for greater involvement of scientists in the policy process across a range of policy domains—including research policy (Douglas, 2009). Scientists have a privileged role in the policy process that is derived from the powerful subject-position of authority and legitimacy produced through authoritative scientific discourses that define contemporary society (Epstein, 2008). As the primary authors of authoritative scientific discourses, scientists are positioned to authorize what can be known and said about and done with or to the phenomena and entities that constitute policy issues (Epstein, 2008; Hoppe, 2005). As producers of knowledge and socially accepted ‘interpreters of reality’, scientists are often the first to become aware of potential policy issues and uniquely positioned to draw attention to those issues (Litfin, 1994). While scientists are powerful discursive agents; their power is limited—they do not replace the policy process (Litfin, 1994). Scientists are limited in what they can say by the enabling and constraining capacity of discourses (Hajer, 1995), the inherent uncertainty of science in providing definitive answers (Ockwell & Rydin, 2006), competing types of knowledge (Buchanan, 2013), the limits of science in resolving policy issues that require value judgements (Palmer, 2010) and the power of policy decision-makers (Epstein, 2008).

Knowledge brokers as discursive agents.

In the case of research policy, knowledge claims linked to distinct scientific discourses are necessary to fully comprehend the policy issue, choices and solution under consideration. The knowledge claims and the discourses in which they are embedded need to be translated into non- scientific discourses and articulated with higher order policy discourses (Laffey & Weldes, 1997; Hajer, 1995). In the process of translation, policy actors create their own understanding and meanings, re-interpreting knowledge claims from outside their areas of expertise in order to reduce the discursive complexity and the uncertainty and contingency of the knowledge claims. Policy decisions depend on reduced complexity and multi-interpretability of discourse (Hajer, 1995). Scientists do not hold exclusive power over scientific discourse (Epstein, 2008; Litfin,

1994). Once scientific knowledge is produced and disseminated it becomes a public good, accessible to anyone to adapt to their discursive strategies (Litfin, 1994). With the increasing complexity of policy issues, the specialization of science and the challenging dynamics between the two, knowledge brokers are powerful discursive agents due to their capacity to interpret, translate and frame scientific knowledge into policy-relevant language (Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994; Magnuszewski, et al., 2010; Smith, 2013). Litfin (1994) identifies knowledge-brokers “as intermediaries between the original researchers, or producers of knowledge, and the policymakers who consume that knowledge but lack the time and training necessary to absorb the original research” (p. 4). This “ability to understand the work of academics and other researchers. . .[translate] the work, identifying the policy-relevant angles. . .and framing it in language accessible to decision makers” (p. 36-37) is a “substantial source of political power” (p. 4). Hajer (1995) similarly identifies a role and need for an intermediary “who is able to relate. . .different (composite) discourses and come to some form of closure” (p. 225) in bridging science and policy discourses. Knowledge brokers are not restricted to certain types of policy actors but can be anyone who discursively takes up or is assigned the role of translating scientific knowledge and blending it into higher order policy discourse (Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995; Smith, 2013).

Limitations of Discursive Policy Analysis

There are two limitations of discursive policy analysis that warrant comment. The first concerns the ontological and epistemological nature of discourse and would apply generically to all DPA studies. The second limitation is relevant to studies of promissory discourses.

There is a risk when adopting a discursive approach to policy analysis of reducing policy and the policy process to the ideational or epiphenomenal. Likewise, there is a risk of denying the reality or materiality of policy issues, decisions, actions and outcomes. Such a relativistic stance to DPA has been critiqued as not only unwarranted, but counterproductive to balanced analysis and meaningful conclusions (Dryzek, 2013). Dryzek (2013) warns: “Just because something is socially interpreted does not mean it is unreal” (p. 12). Both Epstein (2009) and Litfin (1994) point out that discourses give meaning to social and physical realities and are inextricably linked to material practices. As Epstein (2009) argues, both “discourses and material practices are. . .tightly bound up and mutually constitutive” (p. 5). Therefore, to avoid an impoverished relativistic stance, a discursive analysis approach needs to adopt what Litfin (1994) called a

36 realist ontology and interpretivist epistemology, accepting that there is a material reality, which can be interpreted in multiple ways. Furthermore, a balanced discursive approach recognizes the interdependent roles of discourse, agency and structure in shaping policy and the policy process (Harvey, 2009). Such an approach eliminates the idealist-materialist dichotomy, in that what is said about the entities or phenomena of policy analyses is tightly connected to what is done with or to them (Epstein, 2009).

Story-lines are forms of narrative that reduce the discursive complexity of policy debates and persuade policy actors with diverse and divergent interests and understanding to coalesce in discourse-coalitions in support of the ideas and arguments expressed in the story-lines. The power of story-lines is influential at all levels of discourse, including deeply held core beliefs and belief systems. Story-lines can alter cognitive patterns, create new cognitions and ways of thinking, (Laffey & Weldes, 1999) and shape and alter interests and identities (Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995, Litfin, 1994). This aspect of discursive power is especially relevant for promise of science discourses that envision new futures for society based on anticipated advances in science and technology that may introduce new knowledge claims about how the natural world works or new ways of intervening in the natural world or new understandings and perceptions of our relationship with the natural world. Such promise of science discourses have been shown to be powerful in shaping the trajectory and outcomes of research, technological innovation and policy processes (Birch et al., 2014; Borup et al., 2006). The future-oriented nature of the promise of science discourse is a dimension of discourse that the discursive policy analysis literature largely overlooks. That policy, in general, is future-oriented is widely accepted, but does not seem to raise theoretical, analytical or empirical concerns within policy studies. I argue that the future- oriented nature of the promise of science discourse that characterizes research policy discourse has implications for research policy and the research policy process that are not considered in the discursive policy analysis literature. The sociology of expectations of science and technology helps to make sense of the unique role (power) of promise of science discourses in shaping the research policy process and constituting research policy.

Sociology of Expectations of Science and Technology

The promise of science is deeply rooted in the compelling urge to explore and discover the unknown, the drive to make sense of the universe, our role in it and to intervene and control it

(Cabanes et al., 2014; Hacking, 1983). The promise of science can be traced back to the Scientific Revolution. The dawning of the new era of modern science in the 16th century was driven by a shift in the understanding of the pursuit of knowledge. The early scientists, like Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes shared a similar vision of science that offered truth for guiding and directing human understanding of the world and provided definitive answers to the challenges faced by society. The new science as espoused by Francis Bacon was envisioned as “the endeavour to renew and enlarge the power and empire of mankind in general over the universe” (Lloyd, 2002, p. 15). The realization that the future was not under the control of god(s) and could be different from the past or present was made possible by the promise of science (Adam, 2010). Once the future was made available to our intervention and manipulation, the promise of science took on multiple possibilities that were also subject to our control. For more than 500 years the promise of science has been one of the most enduring of social discourses. With the overarching belief in the promise of science as the basis for social progress and a brighter future, science has become one of the most significant of human activities (Mitcham & Froderman, 2004). By the 1700s, governments began to realize that public value could be gained from the promise of science. More recently, the promise of science has become the foundation of modern science policy discourse, grounded in the belief that public support for science is justified by the potential usefulness of science in contributing to the material welfare of society in terms of both economic prosperity and social well-being (Bozeman & Sarewitz, 2005; Geiger & Sá, 2008; Morris, 2003; Sarewitz et al., 2004). As one of the most reliable sources of knowledge about the natural world and a pre-eminent means of legitimation, science and scientists carry certain prima facie societal and cultural authority (Douglas, 2009; Litfin, 1994). The power of the promise of science discourse is embedded in the compelling allure of the future and, as ‘knowledge-yet-to-be’, in the epistemic authority that scientific knowledge garners in society: “[expressing] what can be a matter of fact (in the future), but what is [actually] not (yet) a matter of fact” (van Lente, 1993, p. 68).

The sociology of expectations of science and technology has built a body of empirical and conceptual knowledge that offers insights into how promise of science discourses shape scientific and technological fields, industrial sectors and the transformation of institutional and policy frameworks (Birch et al., 2014; Borup et al., 2006; Brown et al., 2000a; Guice, 1999; Hanson, 2011; Martin, 2015b; van Lente, 1993). There are considerable similarities and overlaps between the discursive policy analysis literature and sociology of expectations of science and

38 technology literature, which is not entirely unexpected given that expectations of science and technology are fundamentally a unique type of discourse, which I have labelled ‘promise of science discourse’. In the following section, I highlight three core contributions of the sociology of expectations literature relevant to my thesis and address the previously identified gap in the discursive policy analysis literature. The three contributions that I consider are: (1) the unique and critical role of promise of science discourses, (2) the congruity between promise of science discourse and scientific knowledge, and (3) the dynamics of promise of science discourses in shaping policy. Before reviewing these three contributions of the sociology of expectations of science and technology literature, it will be useful to provide a brief overview of conceptualizations of expectations of science and technology and the limitations that the predominant conceptualization places on the capacity of the sociology of expectations to fully understand and explain the power of promise of science discourses.

Conceptualizations of Expectations of Science and Technology

There are four key aspects in the conceptualization of expectations of science and technology summarized in this section: (1) the predominantly material (non-discursive) conceptualization of expectations of science and technology as instrumental entities (Laffey & Weldes, 1997), (2) expectations of science and technology as performative (Borup et al., 2006; van Lente, 1993), (3) the dual lines of scholarly inquiry on the sociology of the expectations of science and technology (Brown, Rappert, & Webster, 2000a; van Lente, 1993), and (4) the implications and limitations of the emphasis on materiality in the conceptualization of expectations and performativity.

Material conceptualization of expectations of science and technology

Expectations of science and technology are predominantly conceptualized as material, stable objects held by individuals acting in their own self-interest (Lave, 2014; Michael, 2000; van Lente, 1993), more closely resembling commodities—tradeable assets (Brown et al., 2003), bids or tenders (Berkhout, 2006), strategic resources (Geels & Smit 2000), substantive materializations of the future (Michael, 2000), or “devices for living in the present” (Sanz Menéndez & Cabello, 2000, p. 229). Expectations of science and technology are defined as “real-time representations of future technological situations and capabilities” (Borup et al., 2006, p. 286) that play a critical role in shaping society, science, technology and the future (Borup et al., 2006; Brown et al., 2000b; Van Lente, 1993). Expectations of science and technology give

39 the future a structure and agency in the present that allows for it to be studied empirically (Wilkie & Michael, 2009). Expectations of science and technology serve an instrumental function in the present by discursively framing a plausible, desirable future that links science and technology solutions to societal problems (Birch et al., 2014; Groves & Tutton, 2013). Expectations of science and technology have a strategic function of reducing the uncertainty, complexity and pluralism inherent in technology development and innovation, by constructing collective frameworks and priorities and aligning the interests of relevant actors (Brown et al., 2000b; van Lente, 1993).

The conceptualization of expectations of science and technology as performative is a central theory of the literature and extends the material conceptualization of expectations to their effects and impacts, which leaves the discursive nature and ideational effects of expectations of science and technology under theorized. Expectations of science and technology are considered to be performative such that they “are not only representations of something that does not (yet) exist, they do something: advising, showing direction, creating obligations” (van Lente, 1993, p. 190).4 In describing expectations of science and technology as “wishful enactments of a desired future”, Michael (2000) argues that expectations of science and technology “perform such futures” and are therefore “made real and in this sense expectations can be understood as performative” (p. 286). In other words, expectations of science and technology do not simply describe or envision futures; they are instrumental in bringing about that which they describe (Cooper, 2013; Guice, 1999; Michael, 2000; Petersen & Krisjansen, 2015; van Lente, 1993): “the representation of the future, conceptualised as a performative materialised artefact shapes the `present' in which it performs'' (Michael, 2000, p. 34). As performative, expectations of science

4 The performativity of expectations of science and technology—the ability to do things—is based on Austin’s (1975) “study of statements, which when uttered, were in fact an action” (van Lente, 1993, p. 190). Austin’s (1975) speech act theory made a distinction between descriptive statements and performative statements, which are said to do something, such as saying “I promise”, performs a promise. Austin (1975) also made a distinction between what speech acts do—perform (illocution)—and what speech acts achieve (perlocution) (Nerlich and Halliday, 2007). In more recent work, the notion of performativity in the sociology of expectations of science and technology has drawn on more contemporary speech act theory (Callon, 2007; MacKenzie, 2006), which has rejected this distinction and argues that all speech acts are performative in some way (Nerlich & Halliday, 2007). Both Callon (2007) and Mackenzie (2006) argue that rather than describing or explaining a reality, discourse shapes reality by performing it (Maki, 2013). It should be noted that the concept of performativity is difficult to unpack due to the plurality of conceptualizations that have been presented in the literature (Maki, 2013). It appears that the sociology of expectations of science and technology literature has adopted and applied all of the conceptualizations, not always consistently or coherently.

40 and technology are wishful enactments of a desired future, rather than wishful thinking for the future (Tutton, 2011, emphasis added). According to Brown (2003), expectations of science and technology “mobilise the future into the present” (p. 5); by envisioning what might happen or what might be possible in the future causes things to happen in the present (Chiles, 2013). Such enactment or mobilizing of a future in the present have been demonstrated across a range of scientific and technological development, including nanotechnology (Lösch, 2006a), hydrogen fuels cells (Eames et al., 2006), biofuels (Berti & Levidow, 2014; Geels & Raven, 2006), xenotransplants (Brown & Beynon-Jones, 2012; Brown & Michael, 2003), genomics (Brown, 2003; Groves & Tutton, 2013), in vitro meat (Chiles, 2013), information and communications technology (Geels & Smit, 2000; Guice, 1999; Konrad, 2006; Wilkie & Michael, 2009), stem cells (Kitzinger & Williams, 2005; Petersen & Krisjansen, 2015; Wainwright, Michael & Clare, 2009), stream restoration (Lave, 2014), membranes (Van Lente & Rip, 1998), circular economy (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017), and augmented reality (Liao, 2012). Similarly, scholars have considered the performativity of expectations of science and technology in enacting and mobilizing the future in the policy-making process (McKean, 2013; Berti & Levidow, 2014; Birch et al., 2014). McKean (2013) looked at what she referred to as the imperative and performative nature of expectations in the development of the British Air Quality Strategy over a 10-year period.

Expectations of science and technology as performative

Perceiving expectations of science and technology as performative confers a materiality to expectations of science and technology that, as “only ephemeral rhetoric, language or representation” (Koay & Sharp, 2014, p. 130), they do not possess, thus giving them material impacts (Cooper, 2013; Lave, 2014). By performing or enacting a future, expectations of science and technology are instrumental in compelling or provoking actions and responses in the present to realize or achieve that future (Brown, 2003; Chiles, 2013; McKean, 2013; Michael, 2000; Petersen & Krisjansen, 2015; Pollock & Williams, 2010). As performative, expectations of science and technology are linked to or credited with generating or producing a diverse range of responses, actions or effects such as mobilizing the support, acceptance and resources needed to pursue the development of technological innovations (Broer & Pickersgill, 2015; Chiles, 2013; Hedgecoe & Martin, 2003; Milne, 2012; van Lente, 1993), building legitimacy for new fields science and technology (Lave, 2014; Martin, Brown & Kraft, 2008; van Lente & Rip, 1998;

Williams, Higgs & Katz, 2012), defining roles and identities (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017; Horst, 2007; Tutton, 2012: Wilkie & Michael, 2009), building mutually binding agendas among stakeholders (van Lente, 1993), establishing meanings (Eames et al., 2006; Faulkner, 2012; Guice, 1999), aligning and coordinating stakeholders, activities and networks (Brown & Michael, 2003; Konrad, 2006; Martin et al., 2008; Nerlich & Halliday, 2007), creating value and capital (Brown, 2003; Petersen & Krisjansen, 2015), establishing protective niches for new technologies to develop (Geels & Smit, 2000; van Lente, 2006), and guiding the direction or trajectory of research and development (Rosengarten & Michael, 2009; Wainwright, Williams, Michael, Farsides & Cribb, 2006).

Essentially, the notion of performativity is the means by which the sociology of expectations of science and technology literature conceptualizes, makes sense of and understands the power of expectations of science and technology. The notion of performativity is intended to focus attention on what expectations of science and technology do, “their capacity to project futures, which can have effects” (Wainwright, Michael & Clare, 2009, p. 960), rather than on what expectations of science and technology represent or describe or their veracity (Bakker & Budde, 2012; Wainwright et al., 2009). This is similar to the conceptualization of discursive power described in the previous section. Performativity is defined as the capacity of expectations to perform, shape or construct an entity or identity (Petersen & Krisjansen, 2015). References to performative power (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017), performative work (Cooper, 2013), performative force (Nerlich & Halliday, 2007), performative effects (Wainright et al., 2009) and forceful futures (Milne, 2012) imply the notion of power: the ability to produce an effect (Litfin, 1994). In this context and for the sake of consistency and simplicity, I adopt the conceptualization of discursive power and refer to the ‘power of’ and ‘effects and impacts of’ promise of genomics discourses and expectations of genomics story-lines rather than ‘performativity’ in Chapters 4 and 5.

Dual lines of inquiry

The expectations of science and technology literature can be characterized by two loosely delineated trajectories. One central line of inquiry is interested in studying the future as a distinct sociological phenomenon. This strand of scholarship has chosen to focus on science and technology because of its inherent future orientation (Adam, 2010; Brown, Rappert & Webster, 2000b). Science and technology advance on the basis of forward-looking statements (e.g.

42 expectations): “the future of science and technology is actively created in the present through contested claims and counterclaims over its potential” (Brown et al., 2000b, p. 5). The focus of this strand of the literature is on “looking at how the future as a temporal abstraction is constructed and managed by whom and under what conditions” (Brown et al., 2000b, p. 4). The other predominant trajectory comes to study the role and dynamics of science and technology expectations seeking to understand technology development and adoption within the Science & Technology Studies tradition (van Lente 1993). The innovation-focused niche of the literature has conceptualized and empirically documented the role and dynamics of expectations within the broader innovation system. Both streams of the literature highlight the ‘performativity’ of expectations in shaping the present, the future and the development of new science and technology (Borup et al., 2006; Brown et al., 2000a; Cooper, 2013; Pollock & Williams, 2010; Van Lente, 1993).

Implications of material conceptualization

There are implications of the predominantly material conceptualization of expectations of science and technology and performativity that highlight the need for a discourse-based theory, such as discursive policy analysis to complement the theoretical grounding of the sociology of expectations of science and technology. The emphasis on the material conceptualization of expectations fails to recognize and consider ideational effects of expectations, which limits the complete characterization of the potential of expectations in shaping the policy process (Konrad, 2006; Laffey & Weldes, 1997). There are several aspects to a material conceptualization of expectations. First, expectations of science and technology are treated as distinct and competing variables with causal properties, instead of socially, co-constructed phenomena that are interdependently involved in complex relationships and processes (Laffey & Weldes, 1997). Second, in a material conceptualization, expectations are defined as individual cognitive possessions (Laffey & Weldes, 1997). Furthermore, the materialist conceptualization of expectations is directly linked to a physical conceptualization of power situated within a control and dominate power regime (Brown, 2005; Cooper, 2013). Within a physical conceptualization of power, expectations are seen as constructing a dominant framework and priorities, aligning interests that resolve divergent and competing perspectives, reducing struggles between competing innovation agendas (Brown et al., 2000b; Cooper, 2013; van Lente, 1993). A single dominant vision of the future effectively locks-in the framing of technological innovations or

43 research areas of “powerful amalgamations of vested interests within a field” (Cooper, 2013, p. 61). Expectations of science and technology orient “knowledge, perceptions and beliefs around the interests of dominant groups,” establishing a narrative of value and meaning powerful enough to discredit or diminish alternative framings, blocking new ideas and potential impacts (Cooper, 2013, p. 62). Expectations are essential for aligning interests and closing off competing innovation agendas in favour of established norms, beliefs and goals of dominant groups (Cooper, 2013). A politics of expectations is linked to inequalities of power and authority in defining futures (Borup et al., 2006), which fails to consider the generative aspects associated with the ideational effectives of discursive power.

Theorization and conceptualization of expectations of science and technology as discursive (or ideational) is limited to more recent studies, which are coincidently predominantly analyses of the role of expectations in shaping policy (Birch et al., 2014; Levidow et al., 2012; McKean, 2013; Vignola-Gagné, 2012). Several scholars studying the dynamics of expectations in the policy process from a discursive approach have turned to the discursive policy analysis literature for theoretical grounding and conceptual frameworks (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017; McGrail, 2011; McKean, 2013; Vignola-Gagné, 2012). A discursive approach to studying the dynamics of expectations in shaping policy has been shown to expand the analytical and theoretical reach of expectations (Birch et al., 2014; Cooper, 2013; Levidow et al., 2012; McKean, 2013; Vignola- Gagné, 2012). McKean (2013) argues that including a discursive approach with the sociology of expectations “illuminates the often unseen roles of different discourses in policy making, shows how political discourses can shape the definition of an environmental problem and thus direct both the political and scientific research agendas” (p. 60). It is interesting to note that there is on- going debate in the sociology of expectations of science and technology literature over whether expectations of science and technology should be conceptualized and operationalized as discourse (Berkhout, 2006; Borup et al., 2006; Hedgecoe & Martin, 2003; Lave, 2014; McKean, 2013; Michael, 2000). However, it is the more recent work that adopts a discursive conceptualization that I drew from to identify the three key contributions of sociology of expectations of science and technology literature relevant to my thesis: (1) the unique and critical role of promise of science discourses, (2) the congruity between promise of science discourse and scientific knowledge, and (3) the dynamics of promise of science discourses in shaping policy. The earlier, seminal work that adopts a material conceptualization and a focus on the role

44 of expectations in shaping technology development and innovation is drawn on for supporting conceptual and empirical grounding where needed.

Key Contributions of the Sociology of Expectations Literature

Particularly relevant to my thesis, the following are three contributions of the sociology of expectations of science and technology literature:

The unique and critical role of promise of science discourses.

A key contribution of the sociology of expectations of science and technology has been the empirical demonstration of the unique and critical role played by future-oriented promise of science discourses in science, technology, research, innovation, and policy-related practices and processes. The sociology of expectations of science and technology has identified that future discourses of science, technology and innovation are equally as important to understanding the role and impact of science in society as discourses of the past or present (Brown et al., 2000b; Lave, 2014). The sociology of expectations has demonstrated how analyzing the effects of promise of science discourses is a key element to understanding the processes involved in technological innovation and research policy (Borup et al., 2006), arguing that “very little in innovation can work in isolation from a highly dynamic and variegated body of future-oriented understandings about the future” (Borup et al., 2006, p. 286). The literature has shown that expectations of science and technology are crucial for the advancement of science, technology and innovation (Cooper, 2013; van Lente & Rip, 1998). The ubiquity of promise of science discourses is evident across all fields of science, technology, innovation, research, and related- policy practices and processes. The promise of science is invoked in the promotion of new fields of science and areas of technological development, debates over the social, economic and ethical impacts of new scientific knowledge and technological innovations (Hanson, 2011) and demands for new approaches to the governance of science (Apreda et al., 2014; Brown & Beynon-Jones, 2012; Grove & Tutton, 2013). The power of promissory scientific discourse is increasingly acknowledged in fields beyond Science and Technology Studies (Chiles, 2013; Jönsson, 2016; Lave, 2014; Liao, 2009; Nerlich & Halliday, 2007). According to Borup, et al., (2006) “future- oriented abstractions are among the most important objects of enquiry for scholars and analysts of innovation” (p. 285). Furthermore, the sociology of expectations of science and technology has highlighted how making sense of the present is rooted in the future (Lave, 2014).

Congruity between promise of science discourses and scientific knowledge

A second key contribution is the recognition of the congruity between expectations of science and technology and scientific knowledge (Borup et al., 2006). Birch and others (2014) and Brown and others (2006) have identified the emerging trend of expectations in supplanting scientific knowledge in emerging areas of science such as the life sciences. In tracing the history of haematopoietic stem cells, including the evolution of the therapeutic uses and development of clinical applications through the lens of expectations, Martin and others (2008) argue that “the construction of expectations cannot. . .be separated from the creation of knowledge” (p. 38). Groves and Tutton (2013) illustrate how evolving expectations (re)shape the ways in which knowledge claims are framed or how technological applications are developed. Selin (2007) argues that there are similarities between the processes involved in legitimizing scientific knowledge claims and those of expectations. Moreover, expectations have a concrete role in the development of scientific knowledge. With this congruence between expectations of science and technology and scientific knowledge, I argue that expectations of science and technology are discursively framed and interpreted as scientific knowledge—representing knowledge-yet-to-be. In the absence of established knowledge claims, expectations of science and technology are discursively perceived as scientific fact or evidence, carrying the same epistemic authority as scientific knowledge (Birch et al., 2014; Selin, 2007). This is an important dimension of promise of science discourses, because of the societal and cultural authority that scientists and scientific knowledge carry, thus giving promise of science discourses a power similar to that of science discourses.

The dynamics of promise of science discourses in shaping policy

The sociology of expectations of science and technology literature provides critical insights specifically focused on promise of science discourses in shaping policy with unique attention to the future—that is, “how the future is mobilized [in the present] to marshal resources, coordinate activities and manage uncertainties” (Brown & Michael, 2003, p. 2). In contrast, discursive policy analysis does not acknowledge the discursive distinction or empirically explore the nature and dynamics of promissory discourses. By identifying promissory discourses as a particular type of discourse, additional dimensions of the power of promise of science discourses are made discernable, for example “present effects of the future” (Hanson, 2011, p. 3). In describing and envisioning a future, interests and actions in the present are impacted (Borup et al., 2006; Brown

46 et al., 2000b). While, the terminology characterizing the power of promise of science discourses is different from that of discursive policy analysis, studies that discursively conceptualize expectations of science and technology have come to many of the same conclusions that discursive policy analysis has about how expectations shape policy and the policy process. Similar to the effects of discourse, the effects of expectations of science and technology have been shown to be generative and productive (Birch et al., 2014), enabling and constraining (Brown & Michael, 2003) and to have both ideational (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017) and material effects (Petersen & Krisjansen, 2015). Porter and Randall’s (2014) description of the power of expectations is very similar to that of the concept of discursive power from the discursive policy analysis literature: Expectations are powerful things. Whether nested in economic forecasts, climate models, or the promise of personalised medicine, expectations, and those who engineer them, play a deeply political role in bringing into being one future over another. . .They pre-emptively shape the social, political and economic context for innovations as well as influence people’s thinking. . .the concept of the sociology of expectations. . .takes seriously the constructive, performative and even destructive role expectations play in the world. Expectations. . .inscribe subject positions, identities and interests; pit utopian or dystopian visions of the future against each other; and align various actors in different roles. (p. 203)

Seminal work on expectations of science and technology focused on technological innovation (Borup et al., 2006; Brown & Michael, 2003; Brown et al., 2000a; Brown, 2003; Geels & Smit, 2000; Glynn, 2002; Guice, 1999; Hedgecoe & Martin, 2003; Konrad, 2006; Mulkay, 1993; van Lente, 1993; van Lente & Rip, 1998; Webster, 2005) and provided the foundational concepts and the empirical basis for expanding the scope of empirical analyses. Case studies of science and technology as diverse as nanotechnology (Lösch, 2006a/b Simakova, 2012), hydrogen fuels cells (Hultman & Nordlund, 2013), biofuels (Berti & Levidow, 2014; Geels & Raven, 2006), xenotransplants (Brown & Beynon-Jones, 2012; Brown & Michael, 2003), genomics (Groves & Tutton, 2013;), information and communications technology (Geels & Smit, 2000; Guice, 1999; Konrad, 2006), stream restoration (Lave, 2014), membranes (Van Lente & Rip, 1998) and augmented reality (Liao, 2012) have demonstrated the various effects that expectations of science and technology have in shaping and influencing the development and adoption of technology. Expectations mobilize the future into the present and motivate the interests, beliefs,

47 actions and behaviours of actors to work in the present towards that future (Brown, 2005; Lazarevic & Valve, 2017).

More recently scholars have begun to consider how promise of science discourse shapes institutional and policy frameworks (Berti & Levidow, 2014; Beynon-Jones & Brown, 2011; Birch et al., 2014; Broer & Pickersgill, 2015; Brown & Beynon-Jones, 2012; Cooper, 2013; Groves & Tutton, 2013; Hanson, 2011; Kitzinger & Williams, 2005; Kokotovich & Kuzma; 2014; Lave, 2014; Levidow et al., 2012; Levidow & Papaioannou, 2013; McKean, 2013; Peterson & Krisjansen, 2015; Simakova, 2012; van Lente, 2006; Vignola-Gagné, 2014). Expectations of science and technology have been directly implicated in the policy process in ways that shape science and technology policy (Petersen & Krisjansen, 2015; van Lente, 2006) and R&D priorities (Birch et al., 2014; Hanson, 2011; Levidow et al., 2012), creating institutional legacies around social and political practices such as regulatory regimes (Brown & Beynon-Jones, 2012; Groves & Tutton, 2013; Kokotovitch & Kuzma, 2014), public health policy (Penders & Goven, 2010) and environmental sustainability (Berti & Levidow, 2014; Lave, 2014). In addition to mirroring the findings of the seminal work in technological innovation in the sociology of expectations literature and discursive policy analysis literature regarding the ideational and material effects of promise of science discourses in shaping policy and the policy process, this more recent work has also discerned novel dynamics that appear unique to the expectations-policy relationship. These findings include the power of promise of science discourses to generate a ‘political economy of expectations’ (Penders & Goven, 2010). By linking promises of advances in science and technology to promises of societal improvements and then to promises of economic growth, a political economy of expectations is created (Borup et al., 2006), which Pender & Goven (2010) argue, in the case of nutrigenomics, “work to align the interests of policy-makers, public health officials, the food industry and (some) scientists, resulting in a collective agenda geared towards promoting nutrigenomics” (p. 910), securing substantial levels of research funding on a global basis. Expectations of science and technology play a central role in mobilizing and directing resources such as research funding, particularly in emerging areas of science and technology (Guice, 1999; Levidow et al., 2012; Martin et al., 2008; Penders & Goven, 2010).

Finally, policy studies of expectations of science and technology suggest that policy-makers may have unique susceptibilities to the power of promises of science discourses. Promise of science

48 discourses direct policy makers to specific policy options or approaches that when institutionalized or embedded in policy, potentially create what Berti and Levidow (2014) call ‘policy promise lock in’, a policy dilemma over allocating support between incumbent, less desirable technological innovations and emerging, preferable innovations. As a form of path dependency, ‘policy promise lock in’ describes a situation where governments are obligated to maintain support for the development of an incumbent, but less promising technology and to delay support for an advanced (next generation), more promising but emerging technology in order to avoid breaking the prior policy commitment and potentially jeopardizing the development of the more promising technology due to the lost credibility of failing to honour the previous policy (Berti & Levidow, 2014).

Government policy actors are considered to be particularly susceptible to the influence of expectations of science and technology (Brown, 2003; Brown & Beynon-Jones, 2012; Mulkay, 1993). The distance of government policy actors from the source of knowledge production and the culture of urgency and immediacy in reacting to the future visions of emerging fields of science that government policy actors are meant to both promote and regulate creates an “endemic susceptibility of policy to promissory pressure” (Brown, 2003; Brown & Beynon- Jones, 2012, p. 225). In the face of compelling promises, particularly from scientists whose perceived authority adds credibility and legitimacy to expectations, government policy actors (policy advisors, regulators, funders, and politicians) often uncritically accept scientific promissory claims and implement technologically driven policy initiatives (Brown & Beynon- Jones, 2012; Mulkay, 1993) without scrutiny of the bases for the expectations (Glover, 2010; Hedgecoe, 2010). In a similar way, expectations of science and technology have been shown to create a sense of urgency in order to provoke immediate policy and regulatory actions (Brown and Beynon-Jones, 2012; Parandian, Rip, & Te Kulve, 2012). However, this interpretation of the dynamics of promise of science discourses in shaping policy, which is rooted in a control and repress conceptualization of power, leaves policy actors powerless—without agency. Furthermore, it fails to consider their role in responding to and shaping promise of science discourses and thus their own and other policy actors’ interests and priorities, as has been clearly demonstrated in the discursive policy analysis literature.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter I have presented a review of the literature relevant to the empirical, analytical and theoretical context that frames my research question. I constructed a theoretical framework based on salient concepts from the discursive policy analysis and sociology of expectations of science and technology literatures.

DPA acknowledges the constitutive role of discourse in the policy process with a conceptualization of power as discursive, knowledge-based, generative and productive; distributed interdependently between policy actors and discourses. Policy actors have limited power as their interests, identities, positionings are partially and intersubjectively constituted by discourse. On the other hand, discursive practices of dissemination, framing, interpreting and promoting discourses require discursive agents. But, the constraining power of discourses limits actors to interpreting, translating, disseminating and using discourses; policy actors cannot control the meaning of discourses. Story-lines are discursive structures that reduce the discursive complexity of policy debates and persuade policy actors with diverse and divergent interests and understanding to coalesce in discourse-coalitions in support of the ideas and arguments expressed in the story-lines. The power of story-lines can alter cognitive patterns, create new cognitions and new positionings. This form of discursive power is especially relevant for promise of science discourses that envision radically new futures for society based on potential advances in science and technology that may introduce new knowledge claims about how the natural world works or new ways of intervening in it or new understandings and perceptions of our relationship with it. Because promise of science discourses take on the semblance of a science discourse, they carry the credibility and epistemic authority of science knowledge. As such, promise of science discourses can be considered as ‘knowledge-yet-to-be’

50 technological development and innovation and, more recently, policy and regulation. Expectations of science and technology are most powerful and contested in emerging fields of science and technology, where uncertainty and risk are substantial, but the promise of impacts and benefits are compelling. There are three contributions from the sociology of expectations of science and technology that are of particular relevance to understanding how promise of science discourse shapes research policy: (1) the unique and critical role of promise of science discourses, (2) the congruity between promise of science discourse and scientific knowledge, and (3) the dynamics of promise of science discourses in shaping policy.

Linking these concepts from the discursive policy analysis and sociology of expectations of science and technology literatures constructs a solid theoretical and empirical framework that informs and guides the methodological, analytical and interpretive aspects of the research. Chapter 3 describes the study design and outlines the methodological and analytical approaches of the research.

Chapter 3 Research Design

Research Question

My thesis is grounded in an argument that the promise of science is a ubiquitous, powerful, but nescient assumption underlying the rationale of research policy and as such remains an enigma to scholars and policy practitioners and an overlooked aspect influencing our understanding of the roles and limits of science in serving society. The case study was designed to explain how promise of genomics discourse, that is discourse that envisioned or imagined a desired or desirable future for Canada from anticipated advances in genomics science and technology, shaped the research policy process that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada as a research policy approach to funding genomics research. By adopting a discursive approach, I do not reduce research policy or the research policy process to merely discourse, language and the ideational. I acknowledge that there are material elements contingent in shaping research policy and that promise of science discourse is one of many factors that are interdependently involved in shaping research policy.

The design for my thesis research was informed by and adapted from Maxwell’s (2013) Interactive Model of Research Design. The model identifies two types of research questions: general and specific, which reflect the difference between a sampling approach and a case approach to research. As my thesis research was designed as a case study, my research question is constructed as a specific question (Maxwell, 2013); it reflects the purposeful selection of a specific case of a temporally and spatially bounded research policy process. As my research design is grounded in a complex-realist ontological and interpretive epistemological perspective, my research question reflects a realist rather than instrumental approach (Maxwell, 2013): How did expectations of genomics, as promise of genomics discourse, shape the creation of Genome Canada?

51 52

Study Design and Case Selection

The overarching approach for my thesis research was a qualitative, interpretive, single case study. Qualitative, interpretive case study design is well suited for policy research that aims to understand the process by which decisions and actions led to a specific outcome and where meaning, interpretation, and the influence of context are important to that understanding (Maxwell, 2013; Pal, 2005). Qualitative, interpretive case study design is appropriate for developing complex explanations for real-life contemporary phenomena, such as the research policy process and promise of science discourses (Creswell, 2013; Feagin, et al., 1991). Understanding meaning through interpretative analysis is fundamental to discourse analyses and case studies are especially effective for “[weaving] together complex causal narratives that represent a richer array of variables” (Pal, 2005, p. 231). Single case study design is a widely accepted approach across a plurality of social science disciplines (Gerring, 2007; Geva-May 2005; Patton, 2015; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009). It is well suited for research that seeks to develop deep understanding of a phenomenon. My study used a single case to intensively examine the role and impact of promise of science discourses in shaping a research policy process. The case selected for my research was the research policy process that extended over a three-year period (1997-2000) culminating in the creation of Genome Canada as Canada’s policy approach to funding genomics research. The policy process was initiated and predominantly sustained through the advocacy efforts of a group of genomics researchers seeking a federally coordinated and funded genomics research program in Canada and involved a variety of policy and institutional decisions and other actions by various stakeholders, including federal science-based departments and agencies, provincial governments, universities and the private sector.

Genomics emerged as a frontier area of science in the mid-1980s, the result of the convergence of phenomenal advances in genetics and molecular biology (Keller, 2000). Its promise was not only in scientific and technological breakthroughs. While genomics was seen as contemporary scientific revolution—a paradigm shift (Gilbert, 1991) that would transform the way biology was done (Keller, 2000), it was also expected to address a myriad of public policy priorities such as healthcare, economic growth, productivity, and competitiveness, sustainable development, industrial growth, national unity, energy security, social justice, and food security (Cook- Deegan, 1994; Goujon, 2001). Understanding the structure and function of the building blocks of life had promissory implications for economic sectors such as health, agriculture, forestry,

53 fisheries and aquaculture, energy, mining, and the environment. The promise of genomics became an exigent research policy issue in the mid 1980s, when governments realized that the socio-economic promise of genomics required substantial financial, technological and administrative resources and infrastructure, which were only possible through new institutional and policy frameworks (Goujon, 2001; U.S Congress, 1988). Many countries, including Canada, (although much later than most) responded by allocating substantial resources to genomics research through new institutional and policy frameworks (Collins & Galas, 1993; Nymark, 2001; Roberts, 1988; Sasaki, 1998; Spurgeon, 1992; Watson, 1990). Yet, there was skepticism over the promise of genomics from the beginning. Many people questioned whether sequencing the entire genome was the best approach over incremental sequencing of specific genes of biological importance (Smith & Hood, 1987). Others highlighted the risks to the funding of other science disciplines (Watson, 1990), ethical concerns (Cavoukian, 1989, 1991; Knoppers & Chadwick, 1994) and challenges to the far-ranging promises being made about what could be achieved through genomics research (Lippman, 1992). Almost thirty years later genome research continues unabated, as does much of the skepticism (Evans et al., 2011). There has been wide spread criticism over the failure of genomics to live up to its promises; much has been made about ‘genohype’ (Brown, 2003; Bubela, 2006; Caufield, 2016; Claufield & Condit, 2012; Fleising, 2001; Kitzinger, 2008). The paradox of the promise of genomics is a quintessential example of the challenges to research policy inherent in linking promising science to social benefits (Sarewitz et al., 2007).

Since being established in 2000, Genome Canada, in collaboration with six regional Genome Centres, has coordinated and managed $3.6 billion of investments in genomics research, with $1.5 billion from the federal government and $2.1 billion from national and international partners, including provincial governments, industrial and other public-sector partners (Genome Canada, 2017). It is a not-for-profit corporation, incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act and has the following objectives:

1) To develop a coordinated genomics research strategy that positions Canada as a world leader in key economic sectors

2) To provide leading-edge technology to researchers across Canada in all areas of genomics

3) To support large-scale genomics projects of strategic importance to Canada through collaborations among government, industry, academia and the public

4) To build leadership in GEL3S research and the communication of the risks, benefits and successes of Canadian genomics research

5) To encourage and facilitate broader investment in Canada genomics research (Genome Canada, 2017).

As a key initiative of Canada’s research policy, the policy process leading to Genome Canada offers a rich site for an interpretive analysis of how the promise of genomics discourse shaped Canadian research policy for several reasons:

1) Genomics is a quintessential example of a promising science and therefore expected to be strongly characterized by promise of science discourse.

2) The policy process that lead to the creation of Genome Canada is temporally and spatially bounded, which is a key requirement in the selection of cases for case study research (Yin, 2009).

3) As a relatively contemporary policy event, the individuals involved in the process were available for interviews.

4) There were substantial archival and documentary sources of data available; making it a “information-rich case. . .that yields insights and in-depth understanding and. . .that illuminates the question under study” (Patton, 2015, p. 264).

5) The timeframe of the study 1997-2000 was part of a unique economic and fiscal period in Canada, highlighting the salience of context to understanding and explaining “a complex set of decisions and to recount the effect of decisions over time” (Feagin et al., 1991, p. 10).

6) The time period of the study has been identified as marking a new policy paradigm in Canada; Genome Canada as a policy initiative defining the new paradigm represents an important means by which to document and assess the changes (Pritchard, 2000).

7) Genome Canada represented a significant departure from the existing research policy approaches; it was the first third-party, research funding organization targeting a specific field of science.

The logic in selecting this case is its capacity for analytical or theoretical generalization about the role of promise of science in shaping research policy. By making an in-depth study of promise of genomics discourses in shaping the Canadian research policy for funding genomics research, I expect to contribute to broader, more general discussions about the role of promise of science discourses in shaping research funding policies (Pal, 2005; Yin, 2009).

Research Methods and Strategies

The research strategies and methods used in the study (data collection and analyses) were informed by and adapted from Maxwell (2013), Braun & Clark (2006) and Dey (1993). The complete operational aspect of the research process involved six phases (1) data item selection, (2) data item triage, (3) data item classification, (4) data extract generation, (5) thematic analyses and (6) connecting analyses. Each phase is described separately in order to make as explicit and transparent as possible the means by which the findings reported in Chapter 4 were generated and the conclusions and implications presented in Chapter 5 were reached. While the phases of the operational aspects of the research process are reported as distinct and sequential, the entire process was highly iterative and recursive. I used the definitions from Braun and Clarke (2006) to construct organizational framework for my data and data analyses.

Data Item Selection

The first step in selecting data items was sourcing and collecting the data items. I used three sources for generating data relevant to my research question: archival records (briefing notes, meeting agendas and minutes, internal and external communications, policy documents, proposals, slide decks, parliamentary records (e.g. Hansard) and media articles), documents (policy documents, proposals, peer-reviewed journal articles, media articles, corporate strategic plans, annual reports) and elite interviews (Aberbach & Rockman, 2002). The list of all the data items used in my research are presented in Appendix B. Data items are referenced throughout my thesis with the following classifications: TF – Genome Task Force data item, GV- government data item; MD – media data item, TPD - third party data item and STP – science and technology

56 policy data item. Task Force and government data items are further classified as EC – external communications, ED – external documents, GB – genomics or biotechnology policy documents, IC – internal communications, ID - internal documents, M – meeting minutes, R – reports.

Archival records

Archival records were sourced from private collections5 and university and government archives through informal requests and official requests under the Access to Information Act (R.S.C., 1985, C.A-1) and from the Canadian Parliamentary Historical Resources Record6. Informal and formal requests for information were made to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Resource Council (NSERC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Health Canada, Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Industry Canada (IC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada , the Department of Finance, the Privy Council Office (PCO), the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Library and Archives of Canada. Archival records included meeting agenda and minutes, correspondence (emails, letters, memos), briefing notes, presentations, reports, policy documents and media articles. The collection of archival records was iterative and recursive, continuing throughout the research as my awareness and understanding of the case and its context advanced and I became aware of missing data.

Documentary sources

Documents were sourced through on-line searches of the websites of the government science- based departments and agencies, subscription-based databases such as Web of Science, general internet searches using Google and Google Scholar and library searches. Documentary data sources included peer-reviewed articles, government reports and policy documents, commissioned reports, books and media articles. The collection of documents was iterative and

5 Several individuals who were directly involved in the creation of Genome Canada graciously provided me with digital and hard copies of relevant documents from their personal files.

6 The Canadian Parliamentary Historical Record is a searchable on-line database of the debates and journals of the Canadian Senate and House of Commons (http://parl.canadiana.ca/?usrlang=en).

57 recursive, continuing throughout the research as my awareness and understanding of the case and its context advanced and I became aware of missing data

Elite interviews.

Elite interviews are defined as interviews with individuals who are considered high ranking, in positions of authority or power or with particular expertise (Aberbach & Rockman, 2002; Kezar, 2003; Morris, 2009). Interviewing individuals who are considered ‘elite’ by virtue of their “proximity to power” or “particular expertise” (Morris, 2009, p. 209) is associated with unique challenges not normally encountered with more typical informants. Elite interviews are particularly relevant for research that delves into the policy process to “obtain information not available in documentary form and thus not in the public domain [and] to understand the networks of individuals and agencies involved in policymaking and the relative influence exercised by each” (Phillips, 1998, p. 8). The interview techniques used included a semi- structured interview design based on the interview guides in Appendix A, supplemented with interviewing by comment where deemed necessary (Snow, Zurcher & Sjoberg, 1982). In identifying individuals to interview, I sought to achieve a representative cross-section of members of the GTF, government bureaucrats, Cabinet Ministers and intermediaries who were involved in the efforts and decisions leading to the $160 million investment by the federal government that established Genome Canada. Individuals were identified from the archival and documentary sources and by individuals who were interviewed, who, in some cases, assisted me in gaining access. Twenty-two requests for interviews were made; one person formally declined, and three people failed to respond even after several follow up requests. Eighteen interviews were carried out between April – July 2015 and included six members of the GTF (all genome scientists or researchers), nine government representatives from most levels of the government hierarchy (e.g. policy advisor (2), director (1), Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) (2), Deputy Minister (DM) (1), Chief of Staff (1), Cabinet Minister (2)) and three intermediaries from the Medical Research Council. Two of the interviews were done in person; the other 16 were done by telephone. The research was guided and informed by an ethics protocol approved by the University of Toronto Social Sciences, Humanities & Education Research Ethics Board (Protocol ID 31282) (Appendix A). Requests for interviews were sent via email with the informed consent letter attached (Appendix A).

The interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Research notes were taken during the interviews to note certain comments for subsequent analysis. Research memos were written after each interview to capture my initial impressions of the interview and to record preliminary thoughts and reflect on how my initial perspectives aligned with the perspectives and recollections of the interviewee. The interviews served a dual purpose. First, the interviews were used to gather historical data on the advocacy and lobbying activities and major decisions over the three years (March 1997 – March 2000). I used the interviews to validate, confirm and supplement the historical data extracted from the archival and documentary sources. Secondly, the interviews were used to generate data about the participants’ recollections of the promise of genomics discourse during the three-year timeframe and to understand how they perceived and interpreted the expectations of genomics and how those perceptions and interpretations were manifest in promise of genomics discourse and the policy decisions that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. An interview guide was emailed prior to each interview. In some cases, the individual chose to ‘tell their story’ rather than respond to each question directly. The interview guides were adapted for each interview based on the role of person in the process of establishing Genome Canada (Appendix A). The semi-structure questions were supplemented by comments, which Snow and others (1982) argue has advantages over direct questions in certain cases, particularly “for the general purpose of discovery” (p. 305). Comments “[allow] the interviewee to define the response field in accordance with [their own] frame of reference” (p. 289). Whereas questions “frame answers by establishing the parameters around the field of acceptable responses” (p. 289). Comments are perceived as less threatening and do not carry the normative expectations of answer that questions invoke. Snow and others (1982) further argue that interviewing by comment may be particularly effective for gaining understanding and insights about decision-making and activities that “take place ‘backstage’ or ‘behind closed doors’” in “large-scale bureaucratic organizations” (p. 292).

Prior to conducting the interviews, using the archival and documentary sources, I constructed a preliminary chronological outline of the advocacy and lobbying activities and the major decisions over the three-year period from March 1997 – March 2000 that culminated in the $160 million investment that established Genome Canada. Having this historical account allowed me to prompt interviewees’ memories of certain events. Due to confidentiality and anonymity requirements of the ethics protocol, the demographic profile and statistics of the interviewees

59 cannot be reported. Therefore, references from interviews as data supportive of general findings, observations and conclusions are cited as INT-#.

Data Item Triage

The sourcing and collection of data items was very effective and highly productive, resulting in 1000’s of pages representing hundreds of archival records and documents. Dey (1993) refers to “making data more manageable” (p. 85) as part of the process he calls ‘data management’ by eliminating or summarizing irrelevant data. He argues that “[t]here is little point in reading through more than once any data which is clearly irrelevant to the analysis. Why not eliminate it—or at least, summarize it?” (p. 85). According to Dey (1993), In deciding whether or not data is ‘relevant’ we have also to decide what it is (ir)relevant for. The purposes and parameters of the analysis are implicit in these decisions, and we can clarify them considering carefully the criteria upon which decisions about relevance are based. (p 87) The next step in selecting relevant data items was a triage or culling process. Each archival record and document was reviewed for its relevance based on whether it was (1) associated with the case with definitive and explicit reference to genomics, the Genome Task Force or Genome Canada during the timeframe March 1997 – April 2000, and (2) associated with federal science or research policy during the same time frame. Any document meeting these criteria was included as a data item in the data corpus and stored in QSR NVivo for subsequent and deeper analysis.

During the triage process of selecting data items I began to develop a sense of the scope, magnitude and relevance of the data available for addressing the research question, which indicated the need for two types of analytical strategies, which Maxwell (2013) calls categorizing and connecting. Discerning the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines required a categorizing strategy, which involved coding and thematic analysis to identify, through an interpretive approach, what I perceived as promissory discourses about genomics. To ascertain the ideational and material effects of the promise of genomics discourse, a connecting strategy, an analysis that identified antecedents and consequences, was necessary. I needed to connect the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines to outcomes of specific events and activities. Whereas the categorizing strategy was based on discerning differences and similarities; the connecting strategies “[involved] juxtaposition in

60 time and space, the influence of one thing over another, or relations among parts of a text” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 106). During the triage process, I developed an initial and preliminary awareness of patterns, relationships and recurring concepts and tentatively started to think about potential categories and themes, as well as to identify key events, activities and decisions that might be connected to promise of genomics discourses. I also able to identify gaps in the data and gained a sense of how to frame additional requests for information and the best sources for those requests.

Data Item Classification

An important element of my research methodology was data management. With hundreds of documents and multiple analytical objectives, I needed a method for classifying, categorizing and identifying each data item. I developed a data classification system using the functionality of QSR Nvivo (Nvivo) (Table 3.1). Nvivo provides a classification system for recording specific types information about data items. Using predefined and custom source classifications and attributes, I developed a data management system that allowed me to organize my data corpus, uniquely identify each data item and use Nvivo’s advanced analytics to analyze my data. For each data item stored in Nvivo, the document name, classification, type, date, ID number and whether it was genomics related were entered into the Nvivo data management system. The structure of the data classification system, including the attribute values for the classification and type attributes is shown in Table 3.1. The classification attribute was based on the source of the document (e.g. GTF, government, media, science policy, peer reviewed, third-party, or interview). The type attribute included internal documents and communications, which were items such as faxes, memos, slide decks, etc. that were not available publicly. External documents and communications were available in the public domain, while access to internal documents and communications was restricted. The document ID # was a unique identifier based on the classification and type attributes and a number. For example, GV-ED-14 is a government external document. The ID number is used throughout my thesis for referencing and citing data sources. Data items were also classified according to mandate (MRC GTF, MC1, MC2), so that all items related to the first mandate were grouped together in Nvivo.

Table 3.1 Structure of the data management system.

Document Document Classification Type Date Genomics Name ID #

Genome Report (R) Yes Canada (GC)

Government S&T Policy (STP) No (GV)

Interview Genomics/biotechnology (INT) (GVGB)

Peer reviewed Meeting Minutes (M) (PR)

Media (M) Internal document (ID)

Third Party External Document (ED) Document (TPD)

Internal Communication (IC)

External Communication (EC)

Data Extract Generation

The process of data extract generation was my own operationalization of an aspect of qualitative data analysis that is variously described in the literature (e.g. Maxwell, 2013; Braun & Clarke, 2006; Day, 1993). Broadly referred to as ‘coding’, the process of data extract generation produced the ‘raw data’ necessary for in-depth and substantive analyses. The data extracts also represent the empirical evidence that support my findings and conclusions in addressing my research question. Data extract generation was a highly iterative, recursive and reflexive process. It involved a combination of techniques that were tightly integrated and interdependent, making it difficult to unpack as distinct steps or tasks of data analysis. The purpose of data extract generation was to abstract or separate relevant data, in form of data extracts (chunks of text), from its context (data items) (Dey, 1993). Data extract generation is an invasive form of analysis

62 in that the data are broken apart (Maxwell, 2013). Abstracting – generating data extracts was the means by which I approached my data analysis to achieve the empirical and conceptual objectives of the research. Without decontextualized data extracts it would be impossible to carry out the analyses that led to the empirically and conceptually relevant and salient findings, interpretation, conclusions and implications reported in Chapters 4 and 5. There is a risk in abstracting or decontextualizing data extracts from the data item in that the data extract loses its meaning or gains a new meaning as an independent fragment of discourse that was not intended by the author (Day, 1993; Maxwell, 2013).

Data extract generation was done using NVivo. Generating data extracts from the data items involved critical, active reading, interpreting and annotating of each data item, through which I developed an awareness of patterns, relationships, ideas, themes, topics, points of interest, key words, recurring terms and concepts (Dey, 1993). This first careful reading of the data items was guided by the theoretical grounding, my research question and “ideas inspired by prior reading of the relevant literature” (Day, 1993, p. 106), with a focus on who, what, when, where, why, how and so what (Day, 1993). Data extract generation was informed by my two different analytical objectives: (1) categorizing strategy to identify promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines and (2) the connecting strategy to link the discourse and storylines to actions and decisions as ideational and material discursive effects and impacts. In this initial analytical phase I labelled data extracts as either ‘case history’ or ‘genomics’. My initial reading of the data items served to sensitize me to certain meanings, patterns and recurring ideas in the data corpus, from which I synthesized initial categories (nodes in Nvivo, widely considered codes) (Day 1993). For example, it was at this stage that I discerned the expectations of genomics story-lines embedded in the ‘genomics’ data extracts. Every data extract classified as genomics was also coded to at least one (most often more than one) of the eleven expectations of genomics story-lines. I also became aware of temporal aspects that defined the case, particularly that the advocacy efforts for creating Genome Canada were actually three discrete, but sequential mandates. From this observation, I established three distinct time periods or the three mandates as categories (nodes in Nvivo) to which every data extract was assigned (coded): MRC GTF (March 1997 – June 1998), MC-1 (July 1998 – February 1999) and MC-2 (February 1999 – March 2000). Another pattern in the data extracts that I identified as important for subsequent analyses during the data extract generation phase was who produced, generated or disseminated the discourse. I created a policy actor category (parent node in Nvivo), which assigned a ‘who’

63 to the data extracts. The policy actor node included 25 different policy actors who I identified from the data extracts as involved in the advocacy efforts for Genome Canada over the three years. This categorization allowed me to analyze my data for discursive patterns unique to specific policy actors and to understand how different policy actors interpreted the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines, which is a crucial element of discursive policy analysis (Dryzek, 2013).

As I progressed through the data extraction generation process, actively reading and annotating each data item, reflecting on my initial impressions, confirming my expectations, noting surprising or unexpected aspects and elements of the data, as well as links and connections among data items, I began to construct a preliminary category or code set. For each category or code, I reflected on how I perceived the scope of the category and established criteria for assigning categories/codes to data extracts (Dey 1993). In defining the scope for categories, I did not limit my interpretation of the data to explicit references to the category but incorporated “reasonable grounds for inferring” (Dey 1993, p. 131) that a data extract should be assigned to a category. Not all categories (nodes/codes) synthesized during the data extract generation phase proved useful or practical or valid in the later analytical phases or for addressing the research questions. Many categories were abandoned or simply not considered in the later analytical phases. The process of synthesizing or creating categories was not limited to the data extract generation phase but continued throughout the entire operational phases of the study.

Thematic Analyses

Transitioning from data extract generation to thematic analyses was not a discrete and separate process. However, once a substantial proportion of the data items had been read and data extracts categorized such that a category set (coding framework) began to stabilize, the focus of my analysis shifted from the ‘whole’ data item to the decontextualized data extracts. At this point in the operational process, I worked with the data extracts within the context of the categories that I had constructed (e. g. expectations of genomics story-lines, case history, mandates, stakeholders) rather than the data items.7 The thematic analyses involved making comparisons of the data

7 It was often necessary to go back to the data items when the meaning of the decontextualized/abstracted data extracts was unclear.

64 extracts within and between the categories, looking for similarities, differences and temporal patterns that supported (1) combining categories into more general themes or (2) refining categories into more focused subcategories. Through the processes of “searching for themes” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 89), “reviewing themes” (p. 91) and “defining and naming themes” (p. 92), the data extracts were re-assembled into synthetic categorical structures (Maxwell, 2013). I used a variety of ‘query’ functions in NVivo to carry out complex thematic analyses, such as text searches, coding queries, matrix coding and compound queries.8 The different types of queries allowed me to ‘experiment’ with a variety of comparisons within and between categories to ‘test’ my ideas about potential patterns, concepts and themes in the data and to validate/confirm my interpretations of the data. For example, I used text searches and text frequency searches to identify dominant or key discursive themes and discursive patterns within and across each of the expectations of genomics story-lines and to construct the promise of genomics discourse for each mandate. I used a matrix coding query to identify the temporal relationships between and evolution of expectations of genomics story-lines across the three mandates.

Connecting Strategy: Case History Construction

A connecting strategy was used to construct a chronological history of the case and to connect the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines to outcomes of specific events, activities and decisions. According to Maxwell (2013), connecting analytical strategies maintain the spatial and temporal relationships that exist in the data items. Connecting strategies identify “relationships that connect events within a context into a coherent whole” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 113). The focus of the connecting analysis was on constructing a temporal sequence of the process, the events, activities, decisions and outcomes related to the advocacy efforts for a nationally funded and coordinated genomics research program over the three mandates that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. Data extract generation produced data extracts of specific activities, events and decisions. The data extracts were combined and connected—building a temporal/sequential narrative of specific activities, events and decisions into a historical narrative or “into a relational order within an actual context” (Maxwell & Miller

8 QSR NVivo coding queries “find all content coded at selected nodes, a combination of nodes, or nodes with specific attribute values. Matrix coding queries cross-tabulates the coding intersections between two lists of items. Compound queries combine text search queries with coding queries to or two coding queries.”

2008, p. 468). The context being the three-year period and the three mandates that defined the policy process leading to Genome Canada. While the entire case history is not reported in my thesis, it served several purposes. First, it allowed me to construct the ‘story of the origins of Genome Canada’, which has not been done, and therefore gave me the background information and context necessary for making sense of the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines. Second, I gained a comprehensive understanding of the process that extended over the three-years and the sequence of events and decisions that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. Third, constructing the case history allowed me make sense of how prior events and decisions impacted on subsequent events and decisions. Finally, through the case history, I was able to connect the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines to specific outcomes of events, activities and decisions and thus ascertain various ideational and materials effects on the policy process, thus demonstrating how expectations of genomics shaped the research policy process that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada.

Background and Historical Analyses

While progressing through the earlier phases of the operational aspects of my research I became aware that the data bore traces of a variety of contexts that were intricately related through complex and coincidental dynamics. Political, historical and scientific discourses outside the discrete boundaries of the case were a recurring presence in the data. The discursive policy analysis literature has demonstrated the importance of the role played by contextual factors (e.g. historical, social, political, cultural, economic) in shaping the political salience of the various of interpretations of scientific discourses (Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994). While independently the historical, political and scientific discourses were not directly relevant to answering my research question; I could not ignore the potential role they might have played in how the promise of genomics discourse was framed and translated. I constructed a comprehensive historical analysis of Canadian research policy discourse over the time period 1993 – 2000 and a detailed discursive analysis of Canadian genomics research policy from 1985 – 1997. To a lesser extent, I also constructed a high-level review of international genomics policies, as well as a very preliminary review of the progress of genomics research over the time frame 1985 – 2000. I used the Canadian research policy discourse analysis to construct the promise of science economic policy discourse for each of the three mandates. Both analyses gave me greater insights and

66 understanding of specific references to broader research policies and policy decisions and references to past genomics research programs, as well as the attitudes towards genomics research among various policy actors (e.g. federal granting councils). Without this understanding of the historical political context, for example, I would not have been aware of the role the unique economic and fiscal environment in Canada during the three-year timeframe in shaping the unprecedented research policy decisions. Neither would I have grasped the importance of NSERC’s ‘stepping into’ the promise of genomics subject-position during the first mandate, as it was a profound shift in the way NSERC had previously thought about genomics research funding. Overall, the background and historical analyses were valuable in helping me make sense of specific decisions and outcomes and to interpret the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines in the context of salient historical, political and scientific contexts (Epstein, 2008; Litfin, 1994; Shaw 2010).

Validity

Maxwell (2013) describes validity in qualitative research as “the correctness, or credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation or interpretation. . .” (p. 122). He argues that validity of a study is grounded in its inferences and conclusions rather than the methods; validity is not meant to be proof of an objective single truth, but to provide a basis for the credibility, plausibility and usefulness of a study. Threats to validity, often represented as limitations of the study, identify aspects or elements that challenge the credibility or reduce the potential usefulness or acceptance of the findings, conclusions and implications of the study. The highly interpretative nature of my research might be considered as a threat to the validity of the study. My findings, conclusions and implications are inferences made from the data that are contingent on but not limited to:

1) The appropriateness and consistency of my interpretations of the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines

2) The accuracy of my interpretation and construction of historical chronology of the advocacy efforts over the three-year period and the historical analyses of Canadian research policy and genomics research funding

3) The appropriateness and consistency of my interpretations of the outcomes of key events and activities as ideational and material effects of the promise of genomics discourse

My strategy for addressing the limitations of the study was to link my findings and conclusions directly to the data by including multiple examples of ‘raw data’ or data extracts in the form of quotes.

Another potential limitation to my study is gaps in the data due to missing documents. Due to legislative restrictions of the Access to Information Act, I did not have access to documents less than 20 years old deemed to be ‘cabinet confidences’, which are broadly defined as any advice or recommendation provided to a member of Cabinet. Such inaccessible documents include the two Genome Canada Memoranda to Cabinet (1999, 2000) and the Genome Canada Treasury Board submission (2000), but also briefing notes and internal communications (emails, memos, meeting minutes) between government bureaucrats and Cabinet Ministers. The Access to Information Act also includes other exclusions, which meant that certain information contained in documents ‘responsive’ to my requests was redacted. In some cases, I received documents that were almost entirely redacted. These government documents would have provided additional examples of how promise of genomics discourses shaped the genome research policy process leading to the formation of Genome Canada and how those discourses were interpreted and translated by government bureaucrats (policy advisors) into policy-relevant language for Cabinet Ministers. However, publicly available documents, such as throne speeches and budgets represent the ultimate translation of the promise of genomics discourse and therefore it is unlikely that the missing documents would offer new empirical or conceptual insights, or dramatically alter my findings and conclusions, but rather would confirm and provide additional supporting evidence for the findings and conclusions reported in Chapters 4 and 5.

The study was also potentially limited by the individuals selected for and who agreed and did not agree to interviews. Many of the people directly involved in the advocacy efforts over the three years that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada were interviewed, including key members of the Genome Task Force, who were internationally recognized Canadian genome scientists and corporate executives. Key government bureaucrats representing the science-based departments and agencies most actively involved in genomics, the central agencies and Cabinet Ministers, as well as senior representatives from the Medical Research Council agreed to be

68 interviewed. Due to confidentiality requirements of the ethics protocol, the title of those individuals cannot be disclosed, as their identities could very easily be determined by searching the public record for the timeframe of the study. Several high-level government bureaucrats did not respond to multiple requests for interviews. While their input likely would have provided additional historical context, detail and confirmation to the case narrative, it is unlikely that the additional data would significantly change my conclusions and recommendations. The interviews proved to be of limited value for gaining insights on the expectations of genomics over the time-period of interest. The individuals interviewed had difficulty recalling and articulating the promise of genomics discourse or the expectations of genomics story-lines during the three-year timeframe. Moreover, it was difficult to discern if recollections of the promise of genomics discourse were recollections of 20 years ago or interpretations of the promise of genomics discourse in the present. The challenge of re-constructing the past from the perspective of the future is a common limitation of historic research (Beynon-Jones & Brown, 2011). Furthermore, most individuals interviewed had difficulty remembering the details and chronology of the events, activities and decisions over the three years. The interviews were useful for validating, confirming and supplementing the historical data extracted from the archival and documentary sources. They also provided ‘backstage’ insights into the policy process and the relationships among the various policy actors, particularly within the federal government.

Chapter 4 The Power of the Promise of Genomics Discourse in Shaping Research Policy

Introduction

In Chapter 4, I report the findings of my thematic and connecting analyses. There are four sections in the chapter. The first section describes the eleven expectations of genomics story- lines that characterized and defined the promise genomics discourse. The classification of expectations of science and technology as presented in this chapter is unique. No other similar classification of expectations has been reported in the literature. McKean (2013) used a classification system that distinguished among four types of expectations: expectations for technologies, expectations for behaviours, expectations for policy and expectations about the feasibility of achieving objectives. The next three sections of the chapter present a detailed analysis of each of the three mandates over which policy actors advocated for and developed a federally coordinated and funded genomics research program.

The first mandate—MRC Genome Task Force (MRC GTF) began in March 1997 when the MRC established the Genome Task Force and lasted until June 1998 when the MRC approved the GTF’s recommendations and assigned a new mandate. The first mandate was successful in enrolling the Canadian medical research community as represented by the Medical Research Council Canada in the promise of genomics discourse-coalition (Brown, 2003; Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995). Over the two subsequent mandates the promise of genomics discourse transitioned into the political arena and was directed to persuading policy makers of the promise of genomics for Canada’s future. The second mandate—Memorandum to Cabinet 1 (MC-1) began in July 1998 and ended in February 1999 with a disappointing federal budget. While the GTF initially perceived the second mandate to be a failure and a betrayal; it was actually a success such that it set the stage for the final mandate, enrolling senior government policy actors into promise of genomics subject-positions and expanding the promise of genomics discourse-coalition. The final mandate—Memorandum to Cabinet 2 (MC-2) extended from March 1999 to March 2000

69 70 with the federal budget announcement of $160m investment to establish Genome Canada (GV- ED-20) and the signing of the Funding Agreement (TF-ID-17) in March 2000.

For each mandate, I identify and describe the relevant promise of science policy discourse reflecting, the promise of genomics discourse and the salient expectations of genomics story- lines. The promise of science policy discourses, the promise of genomics discourses and the expectations of genomics story-lines reported for each mandate are the result of the thematic analysis (Maxwell, 2013) described in Chapter 3 and represent a synthetic interpretation of hundreds of data items. My characterization of the policy discourses, the promise of genomics discourses and expectations of genomics story-lines cannot be attributed to specific data sources or policy actors. Rather, it should be understood as an aggregative, summative portrayal. I make extensive use of direct quotes from the interviews and data item extracts to support my interpretative findings. Finally, using specific examples of events, activities and policy decisions, I illustrate the range of ideational effects and material impacts of the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines. I draw on the theoretical concepts described in Chapter 2 to explain the ideational effects and material impacts on various institutional and policy frameworks. Crucial to my argument is the evolution of the promise of genomics discourses over the three mandates and the connection to and interaction with the policy discourses of each mandate.

Expectations of Genomics Story-lines

I draw on and adapt Hajer’s (1995) story-lines to discursively conceptualize the promise of genomics discourse that is the focus of my analysis. Expectations of genomics story-lines constitute and symbolize the promise of genomics discourse that envisions scientific and technological advances in genomics and related socio-economic impacts (desired and otherwise). Similar to Hajer’s (1995) story-lines, the expectations of genomics story-lines represent the abridged versions constitutive of broader more complex and multi-dimensional promise of genomics discourse that presaged expected advances in genomics research, science, technology and innovation and the anticipated socio-economic impacts that would be realized as a result of the scientific and technological advances in genomics. The influence of the expectations of genomics story-lines evolved over the three years in response to broader policy discourses, genomics research policy decisions being made, which were, in turn, responses to the promise of

71 genomics discourses, and to the policy advice and feedback on the proposal for Genome Canada, which was framed as the only policy option for realizing the promise of genomics. Different story-lines and combinations of story-lines were emphasized at different time-place-specific moments over the three years.

Using the categorizing strategy and thematic analysis described in Chapter 3, I identified eleven expectations of genomics story-lines in the promise of genomics discourse (Table 4.1).9 The first two expectations of genomics story-lines represent the expectations for genomics scientific research (science expectations of genomics story-lines and technology expectations of genomics story-lines), the remaining nine story-lines envision expectations of the socio-economic impacts and benefits from genomics scientific research and technology development.

Table 4.1. Defining themes of expectations of genomics story-lines.

Expectations of Defining Themes Genomics Story-line Science • knowledge, models, techniques, methods • types of research • nature of research • research system performance • collaborations, partnerships Technology Technology Development • products, processes, services • intellectual property • treatments, diagnostics, therapeutics • databases, hardware, software • automation Access to Leading-edge Technologies Economy • job creation • industrial applications • commercialization • innovation • markets • growth & development • competitiveness • productivity

9 The expectations of genomics story-lines are loosely based on and adapted from the typology of impacts of science (Godin & Dore 2005).

• investment (outgoing) • financing (incoming) Health Public Health • prevalence, cure, prevention of disease • life expectancy • control over health • hope for future of health Health Care System • access to new diagnostics, treatments, therapeutic • system access • performance, efficiencies, staffing Organization • strategic direction/vision • performance • structure • operations • governance • management • administration • capabilities, competencies • capacity Society • life style behaviours, practices • quality of life, well-being, welfare, security • social and public discourse • ethics Policy • public programs • polices, strategies • government priorities, objectives • legislation, regulations, standards Status • notoriety • sovereignty • leadership • credibility • legitimacy Training • human resource development • HQP • labour force needs • capacity building Culture • public understanding of science • worldviews • values, beliefs, attitudes Environment • biodiversity • natural resource management • sustainability • quality

Science expectations of genomics story-lines include expectations related to advances in scientific knowledge such as the development of theories, facts, models, techniques methods, and databases. Science expectation story-lines related to research activities reflect expected changes to the type of research (applied, basic) and the nature of the research (interdisciplinary, inter- sectoral, international) and to expected impacts on the research system, which included anticipated improvements in productivity, capacity, scale and competitiveness, as well as changes to funding mechanisms, science infrastructure and the management of research.

Technology expectations of genomics story-lines envisioned development of new and novel technologies with applications for both genome research and a diverse range of medical and industrial applications, as well as providing Canadian genome researchers with access to leading- edge research infrastructure.

Genome research was expected to create significant, long-term profound opportunities for Canada’s economic performance, as well as growth and development for companies and key economic sectors. Economic expectations of genomics story-lines were characterized by promissory discourses about growth, competitiveness, productivity, commercialization, innovation, domestic and foreign investment, new markets, intellectual property, patenting, licensing and wealth and job creation. Genome research would provide the scientific and technological platforms necessary for industrial applications in economic sectors of critical importance to Canada’s economy: biotechnology, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, environmental, mining and health and would be the basis of industries not yet imagined.

Health expectations of genomics story-lines included expectations of improved health for Canadians and an improved healthcare system. Expectations story-lines about improved health reflected ideas about life expectancy, prevalence, prevention, treatment and occurrence of disease or illness, fertility and hope for and control over personal health. Story-lines about the healthcare system of the future included references of reduced costs and increased efficiency, system access, equipment, staffing, availability, approval and access to new treatments, therapies, diagnosis and clinical guidelines.

Organization expectations of genomics story-lines referred to impacts on organizational activities such governance, accountability, management, strategic planning. Building organizational competency and capacity were also part of the organizational promissory discourse. Existing organizational structures (i.e. granting councils) were framed as insufficient and inadequate to respond to the paradigm shift represented by genome research and therefore a new administrative organization was needed. Organization expectations of genomics story-lines were more prominent in terms of what the government, particularly the central agencies (Treasury Board, Department of Finance and the Privy Council Office) expected of Genome Canada with respect to governance and accountability.

Society expectations of genomics story-lines were defined by promissory discourses related to individuals and groups, envisioning improved quality of life, welfare and security for individuals through changes in life style behaviours and practices, which would lead to changes in broader discourses about society and social progress. Dramatic opportunities for Canada’s social growth and development would be realized, with a promise that genomics discoveries would be responsive to public concerns and hopes. The society expectations of genomics story-line also acknowledged that the promise of genomics was not without its challenges, but GE3LS research would address the complex issues associated with genomics.

The policy expectations of genomics story-lines reflected promissory discourses about informing and influencing policy-makers and public policy, including laws, ethics, regulations, standards and public programs, as well as citizen engagement in research decisions. GE3LS research was envisaged as a crucial area of research – one that would provide guidance and advice to government and ensure cross-sectoral policy coordination in light of the new legal and ethical challenges posed by genome research. This area of scholarship was envisaged as providing the necessary legal and ethical frameworks to inform and support government stewardship responsibilities. The development of cautionary measures, policies, ethics, norms, regulations for the application of genome discoveries was perceived as lagging behind advances in genome knowledge and technology, which posed a liability for government in its regulatory and surveillance mandates. A key expectation was the role that genome research would play in the renewal of the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy. Genome research was positioned as being crucial to supporting the development of a regulatory system for biotechnology. It was also expected that genome research would provide support to the granting councils and federal and

75 provincial governments in developing a strategic plan for genome research and development. research that would “provide advice to researchers, policy makers and the public at large” (TF- R-2, p. 27).

The status expectations of genomics story-lines reflected notions of reputation, notoriety, sovereignty, credibility, leadership and recognition at an international level. It was a consistent element of the promise of genomics discourse over the three mandates, offering a compelling argument that envisioned both the consequences and benefits that would ensue depending on whether Canada established a nationally funded and coordinated genomics research program. The status expectations of story-lines claimed that Canadian scientists were at risk of being shut out of major genome projects. Unless Canada was a full participant in the international genomics research program, the country would not have access to the knowledge that would be generated. Canada’s international scientific reputation was under threat. Canada had fallen behind over the past several years and need to get back in the race. “Canada needs to re-establish its presence in international genome research, by creating a research initiative that is credible on an international scale. In order to draw on the research being undertaken in other countries, we need to able to offer original contributions of our own” (TF-R-2, p. 19). A genome research program would “re- establish our country’s position of influence in international decision-making” (TF-R-1, p. 27). The status expectations of genomics story-line argued that genome research would secure and protect Canada’s genomic sovereignty, heritage and freedom to operate in areas of genome research strategically important to the country. The status expectations of genomics story-lines argued that: “Canada must play its full role in the genomics revolution to protect our own genetic heritage’ (TF-ID-13 n.p.) and that “There is a real threat to genomic sovereignty and our freedom to operate” (TF-R-2, p. 15).

The training expectations of genomics story-lines included promissory discourse about training and education, human resource development, meeting labour market needs, attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel in academic research. The training expectations of genomics story-lines envisioned that world-class training programs would act as a magnet, attracting and retaining the brightest and best to Canada – reversing brain drain and ensuring that Canada would recoup its investment in training and education.

The culture expectations story-lines envisioned the impacts from genome research on Canadian culture, including notions about the public understanding of science, changing attitudes, beliefs,

76 values, worldviews about genomics or science in general. The culture expectations story-lines acknowledged the potential for negative reactions from Canadians regarding genome research but emphasized the positive aspects of how Canadians “generally [welcome] the benefits of biotech, including genomics” (TF-ID-10a slide 15). The cultural expectations of genomics story- lines acknowledged that genome research raised questions of public interest and concern. However, through outreach, consultation and education programs, the general public (Canadians), including students, would be more aware and better informed about the risks, rewards and potential of genomics. It was expected that the research would lead to a better understanding of genomics and thus enjoy more wide support by Canadians.

The environment expectations of genomics story-line were fairly generic (nonspecific), generally referring to the enormous potential of genome research for natural resource management, sustainable development and biodiversity.

Over the course of the three mandates, the promise of genomics discourse co-evolved with the expectations of genomics story-lines and the broader promise of science policy discourse. While the GFT was the dominant policy actor producing the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines, various policy actors played key roles and took up key subject-positions in reframing the promise of genomics discourse in the context of a specific future for Canada, which was articulated with broader promise of science policy discourses.

First Mandate – The MRC Genomics Task Force

The first mandate (MRC GTF) began in March 1997 when the MRC established the ad hoc Genome Task Force “to prepare and implement a national strategy to secure the partnership support required to fund a renewed national genome research effort” (TF-EC-1, p.1). It lasted until June 1998 when the MRC approved the recommendations presented by the GTF in Genomics: A Platform for the New Century (TF-R-2).

Policy Discourse and the Promise of Science

The GTF first mandate coincided with a discursive shift in federal science policy that emphasized the importance of the promise of science in meeting the government’s economic policy vision. The government’s dominant policy discourse was its economic vision of the future for Canada, which was framed by a compelling promise of science discourse that included ideas

77 about the national system of innovation, the global knowledge-based economy, knowledge infrastructure, international competitiveness and biotechnology (STP-1). The economic policy discourse envisaged a strong, growing and competitive economy as the foundation of the country’s future: “The future belongs to societies whose economies are sound, whose populations are healthy, whose children are prepared and who invest in knowledge, education and innovation of their people” (GV-ED-28, p. 14). Within this promise of science economic policy discourse, the government signaled its intention to make science, research and innovation policy priorities for ensuring Canada’s competitive position in the emerging globalized knowledge economy. In the 1997 federal budget speech (GV-ED-23) Finance Minister, Paul Martin re-iterated the economic framing of the promise of science by emphasizing the link between innovation, economic growth and science and technology.

The promise of science as envisioned within the knowledge-based economy demanded a reconceptualization of infrastructure beyond the traditional definition. In the 1997 Budget Speech, Paul Martin, Minister of Finance, re-framed the notion of infrastructure within the context of the knowledge-based economy: “. . .we must broaden our notion of infrastructure. . .beyond its traditional meaning to include the components of future economic success—post-secondary education, knowledge, innovation. . .These are the building blocks of the new wealth of nations and it is in this infrastructure as well that government must invest” (GV-ED-23, p. 13). Investing in knowledge infrastructure was a priority if Canada was to realize its economic future through science, research and innovation: . . .research facilities in our hospitals, our universities and our colleges are part of the root system of our economic prospects for the future. . .they have not kept pace with what world-class innovation and education demands. . .current research infrastructure is. . .unable. . .to keep Canada in the front ranks of the new economy. (GV-ED-23, p. 16)

The research policy solution to the ‘knowledge infrastructure’ problem was the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). The initial $800 million endowment that established the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which would partially support research infrastructure in hospitals, colleges and universities was announced in the 1997 federal budget (GV-ED-30). The other major research policy announcement in the 1997 federal budget was the transition of the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) program to ‘A-based’ funding – making it a

78 permanent government budget item with additional funds allocated for a third phase competition (GV-ED-30). It was in this policy context of an economic policy strongly influenced by the promise of science that the GTF began its advocacy efforts for a nationally coordinated and funded genomics research program.

The renewal of the national biotechnology strategy was a major science policy initiative during the first mandate. Biotechnology was tied directly to the government’s framing of the promise of science in service to the country’s economic future: Biotechnology is a powerful ‘enabling technology’ with applications in many industrial sectors and holding much promise for the future. It has great potential to add to industrial efficiency, output and jobs, enhance productivity and competitiveness of Canada’s important natural resource sectors, safeguard the environment and enhance our quality of life. . .[it] is a key component of the knowledge-based economy that directly generates many new jobs and business opportunities and supports the competitiveness of some of Canada’s most important economic sectors. Biotechnology has the potential to increase Canada’s international competitiveness and promote sustained development in key economic sectors. (GV-GB-28, p. 2, 5) Biotechnology had been a key element of the promise of science policy discourse since the 1970s. It gained policy momentum in 1997 with the renewal of the 1983 National Biotechnology Strategy (GV-GB-28). In setting the context for the renewal process, Roy Atkinson, Executive Director of the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Task Force (CBS-TF), highlighted the promise of new biotechnology-based applications for Canadians in health, environmental remediation, sustainable development and agriculture (GV-GB-25). Canada was perceived to be well positioned in biotechnology and in certain areas several years ahead of major competitors such as Europe and Japan.

The new Canadian Biotechnology Strategy (CBS) was built around the promise of biotechnology “to enhance the quality of life of Canadians in terms of health, safety, the environment and social and economic development by positioning Canada as a responsible world leader in biotechnology” (GV-GB-28, p. 28). Biotechnology had great promise for capturing significant share of the environmental industries market, as well as promise for addressing climate change (GV-GB-28). The promise of biotechnology, however, was threatened by poorly developed

79 strategic alliances and partnerships and a lack of integration into the broader environmental industry. Moreover, the promise of biotechnology was dependent on “public acceptance and support” (GV-GB-28, p. 20) and the new applications were creating concerns related to long- term safety of the biotechnology products moving into the market (GV-GB-25). In light of these concerns, the new biotechnology strategy would emphasize “the responsible management of risk and scientific uncertainty” (GV-GB-25, p. 2). “For the foreseeable future, the rapid pace at which new applications of biotechnology are being created will continue to present government, industry and the public with new opportunities, potential risks, and consumer and socio-ethical issues to be addressed and managed through a responsive and science-based system” (GV-GB- 25, p. 2). The promise of biotechnology policy discourse was articulated with the promise of genomics discourse (GV-GB-33), a connection that would shape and frame the interests and identities of the policy actors involved in developing and implementing the renewed CBS, as well as those of the policy actors involved in advocating for a nationally funded and coordinated genomics research program during the first mandate.

The Promise of Genomics Discourse

The promise of genomics discourse that emerged during the first mandate was intended for a mostly academic audience. It was about the expectations of basic genomic research and science. As a group of mostly academic researchers, the GTF discursively framed a vision of the future that emphasized basic genome research and science. For example, in its second report to the MRC, the GTF highlighted the importance of basic genomics science to the government’s economic policy vision: “Canada needs a strong base in genomics so that we can effectively link scientific knowledge and technology to applications and wealth creation.” (TF-R-2, p.18). Science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines dominated the discourse and tended to be concrete and specific, envisioning specific advances in genome science and the development of technology, which would serve future genomics research. The GTF presented a vision of basic genomic research and science that presaged the potential of an emerging basic science to contribute to the socio-economic future of a nation. It was a future that was under increasing threat due to Canada’s failure to take the importance of the international human genome program seriously.

The promise of genomics discourse challenged existing research funding mechanisms as being inadequate and incapable of responding to the new realities of genomics research, which

80 represented a paradigm shift in biological research. In articulating the promise of genomics discourse, the GTF stressed the risks of lack of genomics research funding to Canada’s role in international genomics research and its international scientific reputation, as well as the risks to the country’s economic future. The vision of basic genomics science and research for Canada’s future framed the issue as one of past policy decisions putting Canada at risk of being less competitive relative to other countries who had made substantial investments in basic genomics science and research. The future constructed for this dystopic vision implicated not only Canadian genomics research, but the spill-over effects to industry, particularly the biotechnology industry, whose future growth was threatened due to the lack of discoveries in the basic research pipeline to support product development and the lack of highly qualified personnel needed to exploit the potential opportunities of genomics research for growth in the biotechnology industry. Canada’s economic future was directly linked to a genomics science and technology future and Canada’s ability to exploit genomics would be determined by the level of research activity at universities and other research institutions. The GTF believed it was not too late to re- join the international genome program and to secure Canada’s future. A major genomics research initiative, such as that envisioned by the GTF, would position Canada as a world leader in specific areas of genome science and biotechnology.

By framing the lack of genomics research funding as a threat to Canada’s economic future (particularly the future of the biotechnology industry) and international scientific reputation, the promise of genomics discourse of the first mandate implicated a range of policy actors, including government policy advisors, analysts and decision-makers within the federal science-based departments and agencies, the biotechnology industry and the various sectors linked to biotechnology (e.g. agriculture, health, environment, natural resources), universities, and genomics researchers. The promise of genomics discourse linked these disparate groups to a common vision, shaping their interests, identities, positions and priorities around a shared goal (Stone, 2012), creating a powerful promise of genomics discourse-coalition (Brown, 2003; Epstein 2008; Hajer, 1995; van Lente, 1993). The promise of genomics discourse created a powerful subject-position establishing policy actors as agents in supporting and promoting the promise of genomics through the myriad expectations of genomics story-lines, demonstrating the interplay between discourse and agency (Epstein, 2008). According to Epstein, (2008) actors produce a discourse, which in turn produces the actors as agents, who occupy distinct and consequential subject-positions.

The promise of genomics discourse during the first mandate framed basic genomics research and science as critical to Canada’s future. The GTF’s second report exemplified this discourse: Genomics represents the scientific and technology opportunity of our generation. It is a field of research that Canada cannot afford to neglect. Genomics research will produce enormous gains in quality of life, wealth creation and sustainable development – three of the government’s top priorities. (TF-R-2, p. 14) The promise of genomics discourse articulated basic genome science and research to the government’s economic policy discourse, which was infused with promise of science discourse, including the knowledge-based economy, national innovation system, biotechnology and knowledge infrastructure. The promise of genomics discourse was closely aligned with the economic policy vision that invoked the importance of science and innovation in achieving economic growth. For example, this discourse was used in the NRC’s Genome Sciences Strategic Initiative proposal: “. . .genomics as an emerging technology that is crucial to future economic development and prosperity. To maintain Canada’s standard of living, quality of life and its position as a leading industrialized county, it is essential that we participate in this technological and scientific revolution” (GV-GB-18, p. 13). The promise of genomics would be realized by “creating new scientific medical knowledge, establishing potential technology applications (drugs, vaccines, bio-medical devices), by strengthening Canada’s health resources innovation systems and by demonstrating co-ordinated entrepreneurial innovation” (GV-GB-6, p. 7). The GTF envisioned basic genome science and research as the knowledge infrastructure that the Finance Minister had highlighted in his budget speech as critical to being successful in the emerging global knowledge economy (GV-ED-23). The GTF argued that [a] program such as that envisioned with Genome Canada will provide the extension of the infrastructure from the physical resources available through the Canada Foundation for Innovation to the knowledge resources that are so accurately perceived by government to be the other component of infrastructure. . .‘A global knowledge-based economy’ is being spurred by the international Human Genome Project, and Canada must re-join this initiative to partake of its benefits. (TF-R-1, p. 29)

Having framed the promise of basic genomics science and research as critical to Canada’s economic future, the GTF argued that the vision of a genome future for Canada was at serious risk. The promise of genomics discourse identified the lack of genomics funding in Canada as a

82 serious problem, which was the direct result of recent research funding policy decisions. The cancellation of the CGAT program, budget cuts to the granting councils and recent policy announcements about anticipated changes to the NCE program had left Canada as the only G-710 country to have reduced genome research funding during the 1990s (TF-R-2). With approximately $3.34m in genomics funding in 1997, “Canada’s genome budget [was] among the lowest of the G-7” (TF-R-2). The lack of funding was limiting Canada’s participation in international genomics research: Canadians were in the vanguard when genome research began in earnest in the 1980s. However, since March 1997, Canada has been alone among developed countries in having no formal genome program. As such we are no longer linked in any substantial way to the Human Genome Project. (TF-R-2, p. 6) Canada was losing its once esteemed international reputation in genome research: “Canada is no longer seen as a force in worldwide genomics research, and as a result has ceased to be invited to participate in many of the key international genome planning organizations” (TF-R-2, p. 15). The urgency of the situation demanded action: “The future of genomics research in Canada is at a critical stage. . .Decisions taken in the coming months will determine whether or not Canada re- emerges as a significant player in this vital field of science and technology” (TF-R-2, p. 1). Moreover, the GTF argued that more than the future of Canadian genome research and its scientific reputation was at stake; the promise of science in service to the government’s economic policy vision for Canada’s future was threatened: “Current levels of genome funding in Canada leave us so far behind those of other countries as to be uncompetitive” (TF-R-2, p. 11). Without a strong federal commitment to genome research the vision of a Canadian knowledge-based economy within a thriving national system of innovation was unlikely. We would not train sufficient HQP to meet the needs of industry: . . .we are currently unable to create growth poles around this critical technology. The pipeline of basic genomic research feeding industry is small. . .Existing industry and industry of the future will suffer because we have no domestic genomic S&T platform and are training an insufficient number of graduates with appropriate skills and experience. . .Key to our ability to exploit genomics is the

10 The G7 was a group of seven countries with the largest, advanced economies, including the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Germany,

number and expertise of genomics workers. The low level of current genomics spending means we are not training enough young people to meet the needs of the Biotechnology industry. (TF-R-2, p. 15)

Under current research funding mechanisms “Canada’s hard-won industrial base in biotechnology will sustain significant damage. . .new financial investments in genomics would not be made in Canada” (TF-R-2, p. 7). Canada’s ‘genomic sovereignty’ and freedom to operate with intellectual property were threatened and we would be “forced to purchase technology and expertise from abroad” (TF-R-2, p. 22). There was growing concern over emerging patenting practices: Developments in international patent legislation have potentially critical implications for all nations. The companies and countries that are investing today in large-scale gene sequencing will be first to patent economically important genes. Other countries will have to pay to use their discoveries which could perhaps include plants (e.g. canola), animals (e.g. beef cattle) and microbes (e.g. yeast) that are economically important to Canada, leaving use without freedom to operate in large areas of genetics and genomics. (TF-R-2, p. 4) A compelling message of the promise of genomics discourse was that under current research funding mechanisms, Canada was facing a substantial scientific, technological and economic risk.

The promise of basic genomics research and science discourse was emphatic in its urgency: “We must act now to create a viable genomics research program in Canada. The longer we fail to take action the further behind we will fall” (TF-R-2, p. 15). The GTF believed it was not too late to re-join the international genome program and regain Canada’s future. The GTF envisioned “a nation-wide initiative to be called Genome Canada. . .a consortium of industry, universities, hospitals, not-for-profit agencies, foundations, and provincial and federal governments, who share a common goal to create a multi-disciplinary research and funding program” (TF-R-2, p. iii). Genome Canada was envisaged as “a national genomics institute that [would] manage an international-calibre research and commercialization platform for the genomics component of Canada’s Biotechnology Strategy” (TF-R-2, p. 17). A major genomics initiative, such as that envisioned by the GTF, would “put Canada back on the path toward a position of world leadership in genome science and biotechnology” (TF-R-2, p. 1) and allow us to “position

Genome Canada to be a world leader in targeted niche areas, and to be smart followers in others” (TF-R-2, p. 23). A substantial investment in genomics research was critical to securing Canada’s future: “Such a program is an essential investment for the future of Canadians in the next millennium” (TF-R-2, p. 1).

The Expectations of Genomics Story-lines

The GTF’s promise of genomics discourse of the first mandate was built around an array of expectations of genomics story-lines that were articulated with, but also challenged elements of the government’s promise of science-based economic policy discourse. During the first mandate, the promise of genomics discourse was dominated by science, technology, economy and status expectations of genomics story-lines.

Three themes were evident in the science expectations of genomics story-line. First, there were the expectations of specific advances in scientific knowledge and understanding of the genome, such as identifying specific genes from DNA sequences, and the importance of genomics for the future of biological and medical research. Second, the science expectations of genomics story- line built an argument for the importance of basic research, highlighting the challenges created by recent policy preferences for applied research and commercialization. Third, the science expectations of genomics story-line envisioned the improvements to Canada’s national research and innovation system that would be realized through a nationally funded and coordinated genomics research program.

The new knowledge and understanding that would be generated was by far the greatest promise of genomics: “Genomics is one of the most important emerging fields of scientific research. . .represents the scientific and technological opportunity of our generation. . .it is a field of research that Canada cannot afford to neglect” (TF-R-2, p. 14). The genome held scientific mysteries that had fascinated scientists for centuries. Genomics research was envisioned to unlock those mysteries, by providing knowledge to: help us understand the construction and functions of the human body, as well as approach age-old questions by taking advantage of the genome as an historical record of evolution. . .Knowledge of the human genome will provide a new approach for investigating the path of human history and the spread and movement of humankind around the globe. . .With parallel analyses of other

genomes, comparisons among species will yield a deeper understanding of evolution and of our place among species. . .determining the underlying biology of genome organization and gene regulation will begin to understand how humans develop from single cells to adults, why this process sometimes goes awry and what changes take place as people age. (TF-R-1, p.13; TF-R- 2, p.4) In general, the advances in knowledge theme of the science expectations of genomics story-line conceived genomics research as the basis from which a “full understanding of the complex biological mechanisms that are the source of molecular causes for natural and disease states” (GV-GB-14 n.p.) would be achieved. The nature of the promise of genomics discourse during the first mandate was decidedly scientific; it was produced by scientists for scientists and as such the science expectations of genomics story-line included very specific predictions of advances that would be achieved. The DNA sequences and maps were perceived as ‘infrastructure’: “the fundamental roadmap—the groundwork of basic information that will support the abundance of applications yet to be foreseen, let alone realized” (TF-R-1, p. 7). The new scientific knowledge and understanding that would be generated had profound implications for the future of biological and medical research. Envisioned as a “Rosetta stone for human biology” (TF-R-1, p. 7), genome research “will produce data bases to guide and shape biological science and medicine well into the 21st century” (TF-R-1, p. 7) and “be used as a primary information source for human biology and medicine well into the new millennium” (TF-R-1, p. 8).

The second theme of the science expectations of genomics story-line was constructed as an argument in support of basic research. The GTF was aware of the promise of science economic policy discourse that linked research to economic competitiveness and emphasized applied research collaborations with industry support as demonstrated by the recent budget announcement that made funding for the NCE permanent (GV-ED-23). The GTC argued that support for genome basic research was necessary to “effectively link scientific knowledge and technology to application and wealth creation” (TF-R-2, p. 18). The science expectations of genomics story-line emphasized that advances in basic genomic science were essential to the promise of genomics vision for Canada’s economic future: “The promise of genomics applications will only arise if we have a strong understanding of the underlying basic science” (TF-R-2, p. 5). The story-line characterized the challenge of genome research as basic research: “Genomics is difficult to promote. It is a step removed from direct applications. It is long-term investment when industry expects quick pay-off. Canada’s investors are hesitant to fund

86 genomics projects until their commercial potential is made clear” (TF-R-1, p. 22). Moreover, the science expectations of genomics story-line framed the temporal nature of basic genomics research in the context of funding and economic benefits: “Basic research can take five or more years to come to fruition. The commercialization of basic research can take upwards of six years after the research has been completed. Decisions made today to invest in basic research will only bear fruit in a decade’s time” (TF-R-2, p. 22). The science expectation of genomics story-line argued that investment in genomics had to start with government investment in university research, which would catalyze industry investment and lead to more globally competitive industries in Canada: Genomics as ‘basic research’ is also perceived to be at the ‘risk-taking’ end of the research and development spectrum, at least in industry’s milieu. On the other hand, in the realm of the universities it is undertaken quite comfortably. This is an obvious opportunity for the creative partnerships between public and private sectors, but the initiative must be from government. Investment in the field is taking place, and Canada must provide the opportunities for that investment to occur here. (TF-R-1, p. 29) The implications of investing or failing to invest in basic genomics research were explicitly framed: A strengthened research community will foster opportunities for financial investment from both Canadian and international investors. Without it the investments will still be made, but elsewhere. . . Investment into training and research today is an investment into the future of many manufacturing and service industries in Canada. (TF-R-1, p. 27).

The third theme of the science expectations of genomics story-lines envisaged an improved national research and innovation system. Genome Canada would address existing weaknesses in funding that were limiting Canada’s competitiveness in international genome research. With adequate funding Genome Canada would create a critical mass of genomics research that would establish a funding mechanism capable of coordinating and managing large-scale research initiatives that were characteristic of genomics and which existing funding mechanisms could not provide: In order to provide a mechanism for integration of activities of various existing and overlapping assets in both the public and private sectors, Genome Canada

will support specified national strategic core resources. First, there will be a series of facilities broadly accessible to university, government and industry to enable research in high priority areas, with a focus on technologies skills and knowledge needed for the future. (TF-R-1, p. 24) Funding of genomics research at internationally competitive levels would put Canada “back in the race and restore the competitiveness of Canadian genomic research” (TF-R-2, p. 20). Coordination and management of the research was seen as crucial to technology transfer and commercialization and to optimizing genome infrastructure proposals supported by the Canada Foundation for Innovation: Whereas initiatives such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation can provide the hard costs of a modern genome research infrastructure, there is the need to pay for the utilization of those facilities – for research. By providing an assured source of research support, Genome Canada will optimize individual genome infrastructure proposals. That is a key role for Genome Canada to play. (TF-R-2, p. 20-21)

The technology expectations of genomics story-line was comprised of two themes, discursively framed as (1) access to leading edge genome research infrastructure and (2) the development of new genome technologies. The first was the expectation that genome research would provide the necessary research infrastructure needed to pursue world-class genome research. Canadian researchers lacked access to the leading-edge genomics tools and instruments deemed necessary to propel their research to pre-eminence, which was forcing them to leave Canada. Having access to state-of-the-art genomic technologies would allow Canadian researchers to remain in Canada to pursue their research. This research would make the second expectation possible; it would generate new and novel technologies with applications for both genome research and a diverse range of medical and industrial applications. New research tools and instruments would be more efficient and cost-effective with the expectation of increasing the efficiency of sequencing and mapping 10 to 20-fold (TF-R-1). Expected technological advances in automation, robotics, software and bioinformatics, which would provide technology platforms for national and international research networks, were necessary to achieve the goals of the Human Genome Project. Importantly, the future of sequencing genomes was inseparably linked to the development of new automated devices. Future advances in and development of technologies included new sequencing machines that were faster and cheaper.

Specific expectations included development of DNA chips, genotyping tools and computational tools needed for advanced genome research. Technology expectations envisaged the development of techniques, treatments, pharmaceuticals, diagnostic and therapeutic agents. In medicine, new technologies would be developed for improved diagnostics, drugs and vaccines. The development of transgenic organisms to produce industrial enzymes, as well as new crops and livestock with novel traits that addressed a range of benefits. Expectations for the development of technologies for industrial applications included agriculture, such as high yielding crops that were more nutritious and naturally pest-resistant, requiring fewer pesticides and fertilizers; new plant varieties for producing biomaterials and therapeutics; as well as livestock with improved traits. Anticipated technological advances with applications in forestry included stronger, faster growing trees. Technologies would be developed for identifying important fish stocks. Next generation pollution detection, prevention and monitoring techniques were envisioned for the environmental industrial. Bacteria and other microorganisms would be engineered to reduce acid rain, produce bioplastics and clean up oil spills.

Intellectual property issues were a particularly compelling technology expectations of genomics story-line that was articulated with the government’s broader economic policy discourse. Patents were envisioned as a primary outcome of genomics research and the means by which the vision of the genome future would be realized. There were concerns that the failure to invest in genomics research would threaten Canada’s ability to pursue the economic opportunities unique to the country due to restrictions created by patents owned by foreign companies. For example, the NRC expressed this concern in its Genome Sciences Strategic Initiative proposal: Economic value for Canada must be captured within a domestic framework of small genomics companies, conservative venture funding, and aggressive moves by U.S. genomics companies to patent the genes and technologies that will underpin future research in the life sciences. . .The consequences of not having a strong national initiative in the genomics revolution must also be evaluated. It would clearly have significant effects on the Canadian economy. . .Canadian research labs and companies that depend upon R&D would be hobbled by licence fees in developing new products or forbidden outright to use proprietary technologies by licence holders wishing to protect markets. (GV-GB-18, p. 12-13) The NRC argued that “[b]y maintaining a strong genomics research base, Canada ensures that discoveries will be made here, reducing foreign license fees, and that the nation has the

89 capability to access and utilize genomics discoveries and developments from abroad” (GV-GB- 18, p. 14). Investment in a national genome research program would allow Canada to participate in international efforts, such as the discovery and characterization of genes which would be important for new drug and crop development. Intellectual property generated by Canadians was crucial if the country was going to be internationally competitive AND have the ‘freedom to operate’ in developing genomic-based solutions to uniquely Canadian problems, particularly for the agri-food sector (GV-GB-21).

Economic expectations of genomics story-lines largely reflected the promise of science economic policy discourse that linked research and economic growth and job creation and the knowledge-based economy: As in many other fields of science and technology, activities funded through Genome Canada will initiate a cycle of investment, technology, products, and jobs. . .Genome Canada will become an engine for economic development in many parts of the country. The ‘virtuous cycle’ of economic growth and development begins with a solid foundation of basic research. (TF-R-2, p. 22)

Genome research was expected to create significant, long-term profound opportunities for Canada’s economic performance, growth and development. As an underlying driver of the Canadian knowledge-based economy, genome research was anticipated to create jobs, stimulate innovation, attract domestic and international investment and create wealth. Genome research was expected to provide the scientific and technological platforms necessary for industrial applications in economic sectors of critical importance to Canada’s economy: agriculture, forestry, fisheries, environmental, mining and health and would be the basis of industries not yet imagined. In agriculture, new crops and livestock with improved qualities would increase the revenues and profitability of Canadian farms, the geographic range of existing and new crops would be expanded. The risk of crop failures would be reduced, as would the need for chemical pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics, thus enhancing the efficiency and productivity of Canadian agriculture. In forestry, productivity gains would be achieved through better performing trees. The aquaculture industry would have superior lines of brood stock to select from, giving it a competitive advantage. A range of new techniques, tools, and practices would make the environmental industry more competitive. The mining sector would experience increased innovation, productivity and commercialization.

The future of the Canadian biotechnology industry was tied inextricably to genome research. Without a national, coordinated integrated genome research program the Canadian biotechnology industry would likely not survive (TF-R-2). The GTF argued that since biotechnology was considered to be the economic engine of the 21st century—a key growth sector for the next millennium—at the heart of the new knowledge-based economy, genome research would be an essential part of Canada’s biotechnology strategy. The ultimate benefit to the Canadian taxpayer would be realized when genome research was applied in all areas of biotechnology. The connection between the promise of genomics and the biotechnology industry can be traced back to the first proposal for a nationally funded genome research program (TPD- 14) in 1989, which stressed the importance of Canadian participation in genome research to the future of the Canadian biotechnology industry. The importance of the link between the promise of biotechnology and the promise of genomics had been emphasized by several groups and in several reports submitted to the CBS Task Force on the importance of research for sustaining and growing Canada’s biotechnology industry (TPD-1, GV-ED-40, GV-GB-33). The National Biotechnology Advisory Committee’s (NBAC) 6th Report Leading in the Next Millennium (GV- GB-33) adopted a promise of genomics discourse that framed basic genomics research and science as one of three main science and technology drivers with promise to generate future capabilities and opportunities in biotechnology: “Genome studies are only the beginning of a whole new generation of technologies that will define the leading edge of biotechnology research for the next decade” (GV-GB-33, p. 8). Reinforcing the genomics science base was envisioned as crucial to a biotechnology strategy that would position Canada as third in global sales of biotechnology products by 2005 (GV-GB-33).

The NBAC Report was particularly critical in its review of the current status of genomics research funding in Canada. According to the NBAC, cuts to genome research were jeopardizing not only Canada’s chances of leading the next wave of post-genomic innovation, but of even being involved in international scientific activities. The country’s existing capacity, which was internationally recognized, was being diminished. Without funding for genomics research Canada stood “to lose its leadership role in agricultural, medical, silvicultural and aquacultural discoveries in the 21st century” (p. 9). The NBAC report stressed the threat to Canada: Genomics studies are only the beginning of a whole new generation of technologies that will define the leading edge of biotechnology research for the next decade. . .The reduction in Canada’s genome program has not only hollowed

out the country’s existing capacity, but has jeopardized the chances of Canada leading the next wave of post-genomic studies. . .owing to the lack of resources, Canada stands to lose out on the commercialization of agricultural, medical, silvicultural and aquacultural discoveries of the 21st century. . .Particularly alarming. . .is the country’s emerging weakness in genomics development, an area in which, as researchers, Canadians were strong a decade ago. . .The elimination of a formal genome program has not only had a significant negative impact on Canada’s current ability to participate in genome research, but has jeopardized Canadian chances of being involved in, let alone leading, the next wave of post- genomic innovation. (GV-GV-33, p. 8-9) Furthermore, the NBAC report linked the lack of policy action in the past to current weaknesses: “The absence of any significant commercial presence in genomics, by way of illustration, is a direct consequence of our failure ten years ago to invest in the inter-disciplinary sciences needed to catalyze and support substantial genomics companies” (GV-GB-33, p. 36-37).

Canada’s standing, status and reputation in genome science and research was a compelling expectation of genomics story-line that envisioned a future of either international recognition or one as an international pariah: Canadian scientists are increasingly outside the information loop and Canada is not represented in international decision-making forums. . .The international community perceives that Canada is prepared to sit on the sidelines, while the rest of the world takes advantage of new knowledge and new industrial opportunities. (TF-R-2, p. 7) Canada had fallen behind over the past several years and needed to get back in the race. Unless it was a full participant in genome research, Canada would not have access to the knowledge that would be generated. These fears were somewhat well founded based on comments made by Dr. James Watson about the Japanese in 1989 and re-iterated in an article published in Science in 1990 in which he suggesed that if other countries did not share in the cost of the human genome project, they should not have access to the results: Clearly, it will be easier for a laboratory to release its own sequences if they can be exchanged for others of equal size. Early sharing of the human DNA database is much more likely to occur if large-scale mapping and sequencing efforts are undertaken by all those major industrial nations that will want to use this data. It

is too early to ask what we should do if we identify one or more countries that have the economic clout to join in the effort, but that apparently do not intend to, hoping instead to take advantage of the information once it becomes publicly available. I do not like to even contemplate such a possibility, since Congress and the public are likely to respond by wanting to move us toward a more nationalistic approach to science. This alternative is counter to the traditions that have allowed me to admire and enjoy the scientific life. The nations of the world must see that the human genome belongs to the world's people, as opposed to its nations. (TPD- 20, p. 48)

The status expectations of genomics story-line argued that a genome research program would “re-establish our country’s position of influence in international decision-making. . .Canada needs to be in a position to control the direction of policies that will shape the world’s future and its own” (TF-R-1, p. 27). Canada was at risk of falling behind and being left out of the promise of the genomics revolution (GV-GB-14). A nationally funded and coordinated genomics research program would “re-establish Canada as an international genomic research leader” (GV-IC-7 n.p.), allow the country to “compete effectively in this rapidly expanding international enterprise” (GV-GB-18, p. 5), “at the forefront research efforts in key areas relevant to Canada’s competitiveness” (GV-ID-12, p. 6) and “move Canada to the international forefront of genome science and innovation” (GV-ID-19 n.p.). The status expectations of genomics story-line envisioned that with adequate funding, Canada would regain its leadership position in genomics research leading to enhanced competitiveness of key industries that would drive the knowledge- based economy of the 21st century. Genome research would secure and protect Canadian genomic sovereignty, heritage and freedom to operate in areas of genome research that were strategically important to the country.

The health expectations of genomics story-line was comprised of two themes, (1) expectations of genomics for improved health and (2) expectations of genomics for improvements to the healthcare system. Health expectations of genomics story-lines focused on identifying diseases that would be addressed through genome research, including cancer, infectious diseases, neurological problems and heart disease and improving the efficiency of the healthcare system. The expectations of genomics for improving health referred to curing, treating or preventing disease, improving life expectancy, the increased availability to patients of treatments, and

93 reductions in the prevalence of disease/illness. Genome research would revolutionize medicine by introducing new approaches to diagnosis, treatment and even preventing disease. The future of personalized medicine was imminent. Understanding the human genome and having the ability to determine individual genomes would allow for planning individually appropriate treatment strategies—giving Canadians more control over their health with the expectation that their healthcare would be tailored to their individual needs: “Eventually one hopes to use such predictive information to design individual programs of lifestyle, diet, medical surveillance and other inventions to alleviate symptoms or prevent the disease from occurring” (TF-R-2, p. 4). Genome research would allow us to “circumvent the natural inclinations of our genes and neutralize their deleterious effects through prevention or treatment” (TF-R-1, p. 28). Healthcare system expectations story-lines included improving the cost structure and efficiency of the healthcare system and accessibility to the system. Through advances in genomics research, the Canadian healthcare system would operate in a more rational and efficient way.

The training expectations of genomics story-line picked up a long-standing science policy discourse that emphasized the need for highly qualified personnel (HQP). Through the training enabled by genome research, Canada would gain HQP, with the scientific, technical, entrepreneurial and management skills required to meet the needs of existing and emerging industries, ensuring the growth and competitiveness of those industries, in particular, biotechnology. Without such highly trained personnel the future competitiveness of the biotechnology industry was in jeopardy, such that “[t]he growth of genome companies will be hindered by the lack of genome research and highly trained personnel” (TF-R-2, p. 15). The training expectations of genomics story-line directly linked Canada’s ability to realize the promise of genomics to having an adequate supply of trained professionals: “The profound changes in technology and information arising from genome research will create dramatic opportunities for Canada’s growth and development in the next century. . .but only if we achieve a critical mass of knowledge, technology and trained personnel” (TF-R-2, p. 5). Training, attracting and retaining HQP, not only in genomics research, science and technology, but also in entrepreneurship and business skills would offer unique value-added opportunities in both the laboratory and industrial setting. Trainees would gain valuable insights and perspectives from both the research and industry-side. Training would also provide support for early career scientists, who faced increasing challenges, and new variations in career paths for technicians

94 and technologists through unique training environments that incorporated management features normally associated with industry (TF-R-2).

Society and policy expectations of genomics story-lines played a relatively minor role in supporting the promise of basic genomic research and science during the first mandate, but the policy expectation story-line would gain importance in the subsequent mandates. Dramatic opportunities for Canada’s social growth and development would be realized, with a promise that genomics discoveries would be responsive to public concerns and hopes: “To enhance the quality of life and the well-being of Canadians, such groundbreaking research must implement new technologies in a way that respects and preserves the environment and the social and ethical values of Canadians” (TF-ID-7, p. 4). Changes in social behaviours were anticipated from basic genomic research and science: “. . .and some predict that carrying one’s personal ‘genotype’ on a CD could become the norm in the foreseeable future” (TF-R-1, p. 18). Social justice would be served through genome research, which would expand the capabilities of forensics: “As a society we expect that all possible methods will be undertaken to ensure that justice is served – and the demand for the benefits of the technology in this area will be closely tied to the Genome Project” (TF-R-1, p. 19). The society expectations of genomics story-line acknowledged that genomics research was not without its challenges: “. . .the anticipated benefits of the genome project will be accompanied by complex issues relating to the use of genetics information” (TF-R-1, p. 9), which would be addressed through GE3LS research that would “provide advice to researchers, policy makers and the public at large” (TF-R-2, p. 27).

Policy expectations of genomics story-line stressed the role of genomics research for informing and supporting regulatory frameworks, particularly for biotechnology and addressing the ethical implications arising from genome research. This expectations of genomics story-line was a key driver leading to a new field of study that was originally called ELSI (ethical, legal, social issues) and modified in Canada to MELSI to reflect the medical issues that could arise from genome research. In Canada, it finally became known as GE3LS (genome ethical, economic, environmental, legal and social). GE3LS research was envisaged as a crucial area of research— one that would provide guidance and advice to government to ensure cross-sectoral policy coordination in light of the new legal and ethical challenges posed by genome research. This area of scholarship was envisaged as providing the necessary legal and ethical frameworks to inform and support government stewardship responsibilities. The development of precautionary

95 measures, policies, ethics, norms, regulations for the application of genome discoveries was perceived as lagging behind advances in genome scientific knowledge and technology, which posed a liability for government in its regulatory and surveillance mandates. Genome research was also framed as being crucial to supporting the development of a regulatory system for biotechnology.

Ideational and Material Effects of the Promise of Genomics Discourses

Having detailed the nature of promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines that were used during the first mandate and by whom, I now consider the ideational and material effects of the discourse and story-lines. As reviewed in Chapter 2, the discursive policy analysis and expectations of science and technology literatures have documented various ideational (shaping interests, identities, priorities and preferences, creating new meanings, altering existing ways of thinking, creating new ways of thinking, creating new positionings) and material (attracting and mobilizing support and funding, forming discourse-coalitions, coordinating activities, transforming institutional and policy frameworks, altering and guiding the direction of research and knowledge production) effects of discourses. The literature also emphasizes the generative, productive power of expectations of science and technology discourse, as well as the enabling and constraining capacity discourse (Brown and Beynon-Jones, 2012; Dryzek, 2013; Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994; Stone, 2012; Wesselink et al., 2013; Wesselink et al., 2014; Vignola-Gagné, 2014).

Focusing on three major activities during the first mandate, I describe and explain the discursive and material effects of the promise of genomics discourse on genome research policy decisions (Table 4.2). The first mandate gives clear evidence of the power of the promise of genomics discourse in shaping the interests, preference, subject-positions and priorities of key policy actors (federal granting councils, NRC, CBS). The promise of genomics discourse was effective in mobilizing the support of powerful policy actors by convincing them of the promise that basic genomics research and science held for the future of Canada as articulated through the economic policy discourse that was infused with promise of science discourses, including innovation, knowledge-economy, and biotechnology. There is evidence that powerful policy actors altered their way of thinking about research funding, changed their ideas about the promise of genomics in achieving their goals and adopted new subject-positions within the promise of genomics

96 discourse. There is further evidence that the promise of genomics discourse was persuasive in convincing policy actors to coordinate independent activities related to genome research funding, to change existing institutional frameworks to align with the promise of genomics discourse. The promise of genomics discourse was effective in mobilizing funding not only for genomics research, but also for expanding the efforts to advocate for a nationally coordinated and funding genome research program under the Genome Canada proposal to a second mandate. As a generative form of power (Litfin, 1994), the promise of genomics discourse was not coercive or controlling, it was persuasive in convincing policy actors that the promise of basic genomics science and research was not only aligned with the governments promise of science policy expectations but could potentially be a means by which those expectations and their interests could be realized. During the first mandate, there are clear signs of a promise of genomics discourse-coalition forming.

Table 4.2. Ideational and material effects of promise of genomics discourse during the first mandate.

Activity Decision Ideational Effect Material Effect

April 1998 meeting Roy Atkinson sends Shaping interests Mobilizing funding between Lap-Chee report to CBS-TF Tsui and Roy highlighting fit Creating new subject- Atkinson to discuss between GFT positions GTF preliminary proposal and new report: A New Vision CBS (TF-R-1) CBS provides $350k to MRC - $150k to GTF; $350k for MELSI research

June 1998 MRC commits Altering ways of Mobilizing funding presentation of GTF $25m/5 years to thinking about final report: Platform genomics research medical research Mobilizing support (TF-R-2) to MRC funding MRC establishes new Transforming Genome Research Creating new subject- institutional Program with 2 positions frameworks program components, new proposal Creating new ideas Forming a discourse- evaluation criteria coalition

Granting councils Granting councils, Shaping interests Coordinating meet in August 1998 CFI and NRC attend activities

Genome Canada proposal briefing Creating new subject- Mobilizing support session positions Transforming NSERC supports Altering ways of institutional promise of genomics thinking about federal frameworks visions and agrees to genomics research present GTF proposal Forming a discourse- for Genome Canada coalition to governing council

NRC agrees to consolidate its genomics proposal with GTF, including academic peer review and performance appraisal model

Shaping preferences and mobilizing funding: the CBS Task Force.

With the link between genomics and biotechnology already well established, particularly through the influential NBAC report (GV-GB-33), one of the first connections the GTF made during the first mandate was with the CBS Task Force (CBS-TF), which was midway through the biotechnology strategy renewal consultation process when the GTF’s the preliminary report A New Vision for Canadian Genome Science: A Knowledge Base for Innovation in Health, Biosciences and Industry in the 21st Century (TF-R-1) was released. The GTF actively participated in the CBS consultations (TF-IC-1). After a meeting with Dr. Tsui, in April 1998, Roy Atkinson, Executive Director, CBS-TF sent the New Vision document to various people on the CBS Task Force suggesting that the argument presented by the GTF “would appear to be the type of strategic science platform intervention that the government may wish to consider seriously” and asked for their input (GV-IC-3). Mr. Atkinson was quoted in the May 27, 1998 issue of Research Money: "I found [the strategy] sufficiently interesting that I circulated it to all of my colleagues. . .It's consistent with the NBAC approach that talked about the need to ensure that sufficient basic research is done that the science pipeline remains filled . . . Our task is policy based so what we're trying to do is look at the role of science and what needs to be done” (MD-39 n.p.). These comments suggest the ideational influence of the promise of genomics discourse in shaping the interests and priorities of policy actors (Litfin, 1994; Stone, 2012). Mr.

Atkinson interpreted the promise of genomics discourse within the context of a broader promise of biotechnology policy discourse, enabling him to consider a nationally coordinated and funded basic genomics research program as a potential policy option for implementing the new biotechnology strategy and encouraging his colleagues to think similarly.

In June 1998, the CBS provided $500k to the MRC to support genomics initiatives. The GTF received $150k to support a second mandate and $350k was allocated for immediate and urgent MELSI initiatives (GV-GB-2). These funding commitments were a tangible, material effect of the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines. The CBS funding suggests that the CBS Task Force had supported Mr. Atkinson’s initial interpretation of the promise of genomics discourses. The decision by the CBS Task Force to provide the funding for the renewed, second GTF mandate indicates that the promise of genomics discourse had an influence in shaping/re-shaping the interests and preferences of the CBS Task Force. Compelling expectations of genomics story-lines directly linked the future of the Canadian biotechnology industry to the promise of basic genomics research and science: In summary, though our biotechnology sector is large, there is insufficient investment in basic genomic research. The pipeline for discoveries is small and the low level of activity means we are not training sufficient numbers of our best and brightest to pursue careers in industry. Unless the situation changes, it will hinder the growth of Canada’s biotechnology industry. (TF-R-2, p. 13) The CBS-TF interpreted the promise of genomics discourse advocating for a nationally coordinated and funded genomics research program as a means by which it could address a key policy priority and an acknowledged weakness of the renewed biotechnology strategy. Not only did the promise of genomics discourse shape the CBS-TF’s preferences and interests, the promise of genomics discourse also persuaded the CBS-TF to support the discourse by providing funding for its further development.

New ways of thinking about medical research funding transform institutional frameworks: the MRC.

In June 1998, the GTF presented its final report, Genomics: A Platform for the New Century (TF-R-2) to the MRC Governing Council (GV-IC-5). The GTF “[envisaged] a 5-year, $250 million program in partnership with industry, government and the private not-for-profit sector” (p. iv) that built on existing capacities in six priority areas of genomics research: (1) genome

99 mapping and sequencing, (2) functional genomics, (3) genotyping technologies, (4) proteomics (5) bioinformatics, (6) medical, ethical and legal implications, which would be delivered through major specialized research centres, “research grants, university/industry collaborative projects, innovative pilot projects, and training and networking” (TF-R-2, p. iv). To achieve this promise of genomics vision of the future for Canada, the GTF made three recommendations: First, that the MRC immediately allocate an additional five million dollars for genomics research and establish a new Genomics Panel to manage new genomics research until Genome Canada was established. Second, that MRC support the proposal for a national genomics program—Genome Canada as a not for profit corporation, recognized as the “principal funding mechanism for university and institute-based genomics research” (TF-R-2, p. 37). Lastly, the GTF requested that the GTF membership be expanded to reflect other sectors, in addition to the human genome, including plant, animal and microbial genomics and that its mandate be renewed and refocused to “initiating consultations with stakeholders in the university, government and industry sectors, with the aim of establishing Genome Canada as an integrated, multi-disciplinary genomics research and commercialization organization” (TF-R-2, p. 41).

The MRC Governing Council’s reaction to the promise of basic genomic research and science discourse for Canada’s future was immediate and positive. During their interviews, two members of the GTF who attended the meeting, each recalled the positive response of the MRC Governing Council to the proposal for a national genome research program: “I remember people coming up and saying finally we hear something good. There was excitement at that meeting” (INT-1). “We were heading for a taxi to go to the airport and suddenly the Senator. . .he’s a very important guy. . .well-known. . .walked out of the room and says. . .outstanding, outstanding” (INT-3). The MRC Governing Council overwhelmingly endorsed the recommendations with an unprecedented commitment of $25 million over five years for targeted genome research funding, making it the largest funding commitment ever made by the Council to a single scientific field (GV-ID-10). In a letter to Dr. Carty (President, NRC) shortly after the Governing Council meeting, Dr. Friesen explained the rationale behind the Council’s decision: “Council hoped that this vote of confidence in Genome Canada would help the organisers rapidly obtain commitments from other potential partners in this important and urgent initiative” (GV-IC-5, p. 1). Furthermore, within weeks of the Council meeting, the MRC announced its new Genome Research Program (GV- GB-2, GV-GB-3, GV-IC-5); adding two new genomics funding programs that had been recommended in the Platform report (TF-R-2). Collaborative Genomics Special Projects were

100 designed for research teams of three or more principal investigators, whose work consists of “components, each scientifically meritorious, which together form an integrated research program able to address issues which could not readily be approached were the components to be funded separately” (GV-GB-3, p. 2). Pilot projects were envisioned as “novel, high-risk initiatives that have the potential to produce breakthrough advances in genomics” (GV-GB-3, p. 2).

With these decisions by the MRC, the power of the promise of genomics discourse becomes apparent through multiple ideational and material effects. The promise of genomics discourse in the first mandate framed the lack of basic genomics research funding as a structural problem within existing research funding mechanisms. In addition to the funding gap created by the CFI and NCE, the existing funding mechanisms (MRC and NSERC) were not designed for the new realities of biological research represented by genomics (TF-R-1, TF-R-2). Establishing new targeted genomics research funding programs suggests that the way the MRC perceived the existing research funding mechanisms and its role in funding basic medical research was altered by the promise of genomics discourse. Hajer (1995) argues that discursive interactions “may alter cognitive patterns and create new cognitions and new positionings” (p. 59). With the new genomics research funding programs, the MRC changed the way it thought about the funding of medical research—accepting the idea that not only was basic genomics research vital to Canada’s future, but that it was different and required new approaches to funding. Materially, the new Genome Research Program (GRP) represented a transformation in the institutional framework of the MRC (Birch et al., 2014). Introducing new funding programs is not a simple process for an established institution such as a federal research granting council. It requires substantial organizational resources and has administrative implications. MRC staff had to be re- assigned to oversee and manage the new GRP (GV-GB-3). A separate ranking and funding decision process was implemented, and additional evaluation criteria introduced for the proposal review process (GV-GB-3). With the reconceptualization of its role in funding medical research, the MRC was persuaded by the promise of genomics discourse to commit an unprecedented $25m over five years to genomics research (GV-ID-10). The material effect of attracting and mobilizing funding has been identified as a critical dynamic of expectations of science and technology (Borup et al., 2006). The briefing note (GV-GB-2) and program announcement (GV- GB-3) for the GRP adopted the promise of genomics discourse in justifying the decisions. According to Hajer (1995), adopting a discourse is an indication of a discourse-coalition

101 forming. In adopting the promise of genomics discourse, the MRC took up the promise of genomics subject-position, establishing its discursive identity, which allowed it to act in establishing the GRP (Epstein, 2008).

Coordinating activities and the power of discursive positioning: the granting councils, NRC and CFI.

In a letter to Dr. Carty, President of the NRC, Dr. Friesen advised him of the MRC decision to support the Genome Canada proposal and suggested that the MRC and NRC might consider coordinating “their efforts to meet the challenge of restoring Canada as a major player in the international genome research arena” (GV-IC-5, p. 2). Several weeks later, Dr. Friesen invited the NRC, NSERC, SSHRC and the CFI to an information briefing and update on the GTF (GV- IC-8). He proposed a short presentation by the GTF, followed by a discussion “to explore next steps and in particular whether we should have a common research council’s approach to this file” (GV-IC-8). The meeting took place in August 1998 with the granting councils, the NRC, the CFI and the GTF. This meeting provides evidence of both ideational and material effects of the promise of genomics discourse, including shaping priorities, mobilizing support, establishing a discourse-coalition and coordinating activities. The meeting itself is an indication of the coordination of activities among various policy actors with interests and initiatives in funding of genomics research (Dryzek, 2013). During the meeting, there was consensus that inclusiveness and integration of the various genomics initiatives into a single proposal was critical as “competition among proposals would be fatal to all, and government would favour a single integrated structure” (TF-M-1). The attendance at the meeting by the granting councils, NRC and CFI indicate that they have to some degree accepted or are supportive of the promise of genomics discourse. While each organization had distinct concepts, interests, mandates and priorities with respect to genomics research funding, all agreed on the importance and urgency of funding basic genomics research. Each organization could support at least some of the expectations of genomics story-lines, but for different reasons and with “partially different understandings of how the story-lines are to be understood” (Hajer, 1995, p. 272).

The diversity and heterogeneity of the expectations of genomics story-lines prominent during the first mandate offered each organization a justification and rationale for supporting the promise of genomics discourse, even if they did not fully agree with the proposed approach. The meeting bound the organizations in an emerging promise of genomics discourse-coalition (Hajer, 1995)

102 and enrolled them as allies in support of the promise of genomics discourse (Borup et al., 2006). The meeting provides an example of the powerful positioning effects of the promise of genomics discourse (Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995). The granting councils and NRC were well-established, powerful institutions within the Canadian science policy system. A valid counter-discourse could have been used by the granting councils and the CFI that advocated for targeted genomics research funding through the existing funding mechanisms. Instead, the granting councils and CFI agreed to support the GTF promise of genomics discourse that advocated for Genome Canada, which established a new subject-position for these organizations (Epstein, 2008; Hajer, 1995). The NRC could have continued lobbying for the nationally coordinated and funded genomics research program proposal that it had already developed (GV-GB-18). The NRC and the GTF were in the process of consolidating their two proposals and proceeding under a single proposal for Genome Canada (TF-M-1). As part of the consolidation agreement, NRC agreed to the peer review evaluation and a performance appraisal model being proposed by the GTF, which were closer to a competitive academic research model than the typical government research model that did not involve peer review. Agreeing to adhere to a new research evaluation system suggests that the NRC was prepared to adapt its way of thinking about how federal research should be evaluated (at least for genome research) and was prepared to transform its institutional frameworks to adopt the peer review and performance appraisal processes being proposed by the GTF. NRC also agreed to merge its proposal with the Genome Canada proposal (GV-GB-5, GV-GB-16, GV-IC-4, GV-IC-6) and formally join Genome Canada as a partner (TF- M-1, MD-50); a decision that was formalized at a press conference in September 1998 (TF-EC- 2, TF-EC-3). This is an unexpected outcome for a powerful organization within the Canadian science policy system, which highlights the productive power of the promise of genomics discourse (Litfin, 1994).

NSERC’s support is particularly salient to understanding the power of the promise of genomics discourse and indicates a shift in its way of thinking about genomics research funding. NSERC had opposed and resisted previous efforts for targeted genomics research (GV-ID-70). Several years earlier, while acknowledging genome research was “an area of intense international activity and excitement”, NSERC expressed uncertainty about the promise of genomics for Canada’s future. NSERC questioned whether genome mapping and sequencing “have a priority call on existing and/or new research resources” (GV-ID-70, p. 4) or “if a substantial involvement in this area is ‘strategically’ wise and a priority for Canada” (GV-ID-70, p. 1). NSERC had

103 expressed concerns about the scientific rigour of genome research: “genome sequencing and mapping are very competitive, require expensive technology, intensive labour, and do not offer the conceptual or creative challenge of other areas of research” (GV-ID-70, p. 2). Furthermore, NSERC had not been in favour of a prior genome research proposal that was based on an ‘act-of- faith’ funding approach similar that being advocated by the GTF because it could lead to a “band wagon response from the research community rather than a well-conceived research initiative” (GV-ID-68, p. 2). At the August 1998 meeting, NSERC’s ideas about and interests in genomics shifted to align with the promise of genomics discourse articulated by the GTF. According to the minutes of the GTF August 26, 1998 meeting: “NSERC acknowledged that genomics is underfunded. They support a concerted effort” and had agreed to present the Genome Canada proposal to its Governing Council for endorsement (TF-M-1 n.p.). NSERC’s response is a salient demonstration of the generative power of discourse conceptualized by Litfin (1994): “fundamental nonmaterial factors such as identities and interests are themselves implicated in knowledge-based power” (Litfin, 1994, p. 17).

Second Mandate – Memorandum to Cabinet I

The second mandate—Memorandum to Cabinet 1 (MC-1) began in July 1998 and ended in February 1999 with a disappointing federal budget. While the GTF initially perceived the second mandate to be a failure and a betrayal; it was actually a success such that it set the stage for the final mandate, enrolling senior government policy actors into promise of genomics subject- positions and expanding the promise of genomics discourse-coalition.

Federally, there was little change in the policy environment during the GTF’s second mandate. There was no election or Speech from the Throne between July 1998 and February 1999 to signal major discursive shifts in policy. Several policy documents released during the second mandate are relevant to this discussion and provide insights to the focus and emphasis of the broader policy discourse that characterized the second mandate, including the new biotechnology strategy (GV-GB-28), the 11th Report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance: Facing the Future (GV-ED-16), several updates on the NRC’s genomics strategy initiative (GV-GB-1) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s proposal for the Canadian Crop Genomics Initiative (GV-GB-21). The 1998 and 1999 federal budgets emphasized the

104 government’s economic policy discourse, which continued to be infused with the promise of science (GV-ED-10, GV-ED-33).

The knowledge-based economy and innovation remained prominent in the economic policy discourse, although there was less emphasis on national systems of innovation. Productivity and competitiveness emerged as dominant ideas of the broader promise of science-based economic policy discourse with R&D funding linked to productivity and competitiveness. The major science policy initiative during the second mandate was the approval by Cabinet of the renewed Canadian Biotechnology Strategy (GV-GB-28). While biotechnology had been part of the promise of science policy discourse for decades, the newly introduced Canadian Biotechnology Strategy brought biotechnology to the top of the policy agenda. As an integral element of the promise of biotechnology discourse, the promise of genomics began to emerge in the broader policy discourse during the second mandate. The GTF, having already tapped into the biotechnology discourse, continued to forge the vision of a genomics future for Canada around the promise of biotechnology and to align the expectations of genomics story-lines with the government’s promise of science economic policy discourse.

Policy Discourse and the Promise of Science

The economy remained the dominant policy priority during the second mandate, with elimination of the deficit a key objective expected to improve Canada’s international competitiveness and the quality of life of Canadians (GV-ED-16). Even though Canada had been ranked as the top country in world on the United Nations’ Human Development Index, which was an aggregate ranking of overall well-being, including the quality of economic, social and political life; the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance claimed that “an increasing number of Canadians are concerned about their economic well-being” (GV-ED-16, p. 13). The Standing Committee insisted that the nation’s economy needed to be a policy priority: “Because the future prosperity of our country depends on having a competitive economy, the Committee makes no excuses for placing economic efficiency high on our list of priorities” (GV- ED-16, p. 25). A productivity discourse linked to economic competitiveness emerged during this time. Productivity was identified as “an important determinant of economic growth and our future standard of living” (GV-ED-16, p. 50) in a report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance: Facing the Future – Challenges and Choice for a New Era (GV-ED-16). According to the Standing Committee on Finance, Canada’s economic future held great promise

105 if we seized the opportunities for improving our productivity. Productivity was envisioned as the “foundation of our economy and social prosperity and our ability to compete in a global market” (GV-ED-16, p. 50). Despite indicators for a strong, competitive economy, labour productivity was one area where the economy was underperforming. Higher productivity promised future prosperity in the form of high skills and high wage jobs (GV-ED-16). The promise of science was crucial to improving productivity: “research and development is the cornerstone of productivity” (GV-ED-16, p. 50). The Standing Committee directly linked productivity to the promise of science: “. . .supporting R&D, a vital component of productivity growth, is so important” (GV-ED-16, p. 50). Given the economic improvements that had been achieved, the Committee felt it was time to make investments in research: Now that our fiscal house is in order, the Committee recommends new financial initiatives that will facilitate basic and applied research in Canada. If adopted, the set of recommendations will increase our ability to capture productivity gains, attract and retain highly productive researchers and successfully adapt to the knowledge-based economy. More funding will increase our capacity to carry out leading-edge research and technology development. It will allow us to foster an environment that will sustain and build on Canada’s research strengths. (GV-ED- 16, p. 50)

The Standing Committee singled out health research as a critical area for increased funding, not only because of its impact on productivity, but also because of the importance of healthcare, which was a policy priority for most Canadians. Furthermore, the Committee believed that increased funding for medical research was necessary to reverse the decline in research capacity and to enable the healthcare system to meet the challenges of the future. The Committee called for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to be funded.11 It envisioned the “CIHR as an important platform for a knowledge-based economy, [providing] job opportunities, [allowing] new entrepreneurial possibilities and [helping] the economy become more productive” (GV-ED- 16, p. 44). As a manifestation of the promise of science for economic and health policy, the Standing Committee argued that

11 The Canadian Institutes of Health Research was an initiative of the MRC, led by Dr. Friesen, to completely re- shape medical and health research and research funding in Canada (MD-61).

106

the [CIHR] would fully integrate health research into Canada’s healthcare system; enhance research in areas where scientific opportunity converges with public health needs; coordinate and provide a national focus to Canada’s research efforts; and drive the system forward to generate, for Canadians, the greatest possible human and economic benefits. (GV-ED-16, p. 44) The NCE program was cited by the Standing Committee as an innovative approach that contributed to “improving our productivity performance and quality of life” by encouraging “better collaboration between the academic, private and public sector” (GV-ED-16, p. 50). The Prime Minister highlighted productivity as policy priority in announcing his Productivity Agenda (GV-GB-34).12 The Finance Minister adopted the productivity-research discourse in the House of Commons a week before the 1999 budget, saying that he intended to “invest in productivity and research and development, in the very sinews of our modern economy” (MD-62).

The approval by Cabinet of the new biotechnology strategy in August 1998 sustained the promise of biotechnology discourse into the second mandate. The renewed CBS identified ten themes around which action plans would be developed (GV-GB-28). The need for R&D to support the development of regulations was a critical priority for the CBS (INT-15). There was growing concern at the executive level in Agriculture and Agri-food Canada over the lack of internal research capacity to support its regulatory responsibilities. This concern was described by an interviewee: “Both ADMs came back very clearly saying we have regulatory responsibilities and we do not have the research capacity to keep up with industry and to carry that inspection responsibility effectively” (INT-15). Much of the promise of biotechnology discourse related to the new Canadian Biotechnology Strategy was framed around the challenges to the regulatory system of keeping up with the rapidly advancing science and industrial expertise in biotechnology (GV-GB- 34). The promise of biotechnology discourse linked the regulatory system directly to the national system innovation as “a linchpin in the chain between R&D and commercialization” (GV-GB-34, slide 8). The inadequate scientific capacity of the regulatory system was framed as a threat to the biotechnology industry, creating “a bottleneck to commercialize new biotechnology products”, leading to a loss of consumer confidence, which

12 The Prime Minister described the need for improving productivity as “one of the key challenges in the years ahead” in a speech on October 26, 1998. (GV-GB-34 slide 24).

107 could negatively impact the market (GV-GB-34). The promise of science for the economy as envisioned through biotechnology was threatened by a regulatory system that lacked sufficient scientific capacity. Increased R&D was identified as one of three urgent priorities for action in the implementation of the CBS. While there was a wide range of research needs in biotechnology, genomics was cited as “the priority for immediate action” (GV-GB-34 slide 10). The promise of genomics emerged as part of the broader promise of science policy discourse during the second mandate partly due to the successful efforts of the GTF to make strategic connections within various science-based departments and agencies and partly due to the genomics research proposals from the NRC (GV-GB-18) and AAFC (GV-GB-21).

The fiscal policies of the Liberal government since coming to power in 1993 had achieved unprecedented budget surpluses in 1998 and 1999 that allowed the government to make equally unprecedented investments in Canadian research, science and technology. With the federal budget deficit eliminated, the Liberals were in a position to harness their vision of the promise of science in service to the economy and to launch what has been referred to as “undoubtedly the golden era of science funding in Canada” (INT-14). The 1999 federal budget, which closed out the GTF’s second mandate, continued the strong focus on the promise of science in service to the economy by outlining a new framework for innovation that focused on three strategic goals: (1) creation of knowledge; (2) dissemination and sharing of knowledge; and (3) application of knowledge and commercialization (GV-ED-10). With almost $2 billion over three years of funding for science and innovation, the 1999 federal budget clearly established science and technology as a national priority (MD-129). It stressed the importance of knowledge and innovation to the economy, Canadians’ standard of living and quality of life: The 1999 budget adds more than $1.8 billion. . .to promote the creation, dissemination and commercialization of knowledge. . .These investments. . .represent a balanced and comprehensive approach to advancing Canada’s knowledge and innovation agenda. . .and are consistent with the government’s commitment to spur Canada’s productivity growth by helping businesses, organizations and individuals put new ideas to work. For Canadians, continued productivity growth will mean a better standard of living and a better quality of life. (GV-ED-10, p. 18).

108

The Promise of Genomics Discourse

The second mandate began shortly after the MRC Governing Council approved and adopted the GTF’s final report, Genomics: A Platform for the New Century (TF-R-2). The GTF was instructed to seek and secure additional funding from the federal government and other partners to “realize the goal of $50m/yr for [genome] research program” (GV-GB-3 n.p.). With the full support of the MRC and $150,000 from the CBS transition fund, the GTF embarked on its second mandate to develop a national strategy for genomics research based on a multi-sectoral model that would build Canadian expertise in genome science and to seek federal support for implementing the strategy. Securing new money through the budget process was considered the most effective route to realizing the promise of genomics vision. The GTF felt that the vision had the best chance of success by aligning with the CBS. The MRC was the current chair of the CBS R&D Committee (CBS-RD) and was represented on the CBS Assistant Deputy Minister Committee, therefore advocating for the promise of genomics at this level of government was on-going (TF-M-1). Advocacy at the Deputy Minister and Ministerial levels was crucial. The CBS Secretariat reported to seven Ministers.13 The GTF decided the best strategy would be to start with the CBS departments by contacting key personnel and to “market our proposal. . .to get onto the government agenda and garner industry support. Lobbying is our agenda and we must focus on that” (TF-M-1). The GTF further decided that it was necessary “to change the psychology. . .to identify. . .as Genome Canada (emphasis in original) . . .to create an independent identity” (TF-M-1). The GTF was advised by Industry Canada and the CBS Secretariat to diversify its approach to government departments, address risks upfront, engage with the Finance Minister through influential public servants, approach the provinces and be persistent (TF-M- 1). The GTF spent the next five months developing a business plan and proposal for Genome Canada to support a Memorandum to Cabinet being led by Strategic Policy and Partnerships, Policy Branch, AAFC (AAFC-Policy).

During the second mandate, the nascent discourse-coalition expanded with a subtle, but salient discursive shift in the promise of genomics discourse that mobilized the support of policy actors

13 The seven federal departments with responsibility for the CBS were Industry Canada, Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, International Trade & Foreign Affairs Canada.

109 in powerful federal science-based departments. The promise of genomics discourse-coalition expanded beyond the polis and into the political arena (Braun, 1999; Stone, 2012). In the political arena, the dissemination and translation of the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines was largely taken over by policy advisors; the GTF had limited direct involvement in the political arena during the second mandate. A priority during this second mandate was to build support for the promise of genomics vision from the full spectrum of the national genomics innovation system, including industry and the academic research community, but in particular the senior bureaucratic and political decision-making levels of the federal government. The shift in target audience required a shift in the promise of genomics discourse. The discourse of the promise of genomics during the second mandate needed to be framed as a policy issue linked to the existing policy discourse (Stone, 2012). The promise of genomics was a good fit with the strong emphasis in policy discourse on the promise of science, in general, and the promise of biotechnology, in particular, for realizing the government’s knowledge-based economy vision for Canada. In framing the promise of genomics as a policy issue, the discourse adopted the pattern described by Birch and others (2014) of featuring descriptive, normative and performative aspects. The descriptive account framed the opportunities that the promise of genomics represented and the consequences facing the country now and in the future of failing to respond. The promise of genomics discourse outlined what the appropriate (normative) responses should be to address the opportunities and avoid the consequences, which was to act quickly in ensuring the national research system was structured such that it had the capacity and capability to meet the challenge of the genomics revolution. The performative elements of the discourse recommended the best or preferred policy approach, which was Genome Canada, a new governance model for the delivery and coordination of research (GV-ID-10). Stone (2012) calls this discursive pattern ‘causal stories’, which are a way of discursively defining a policy problem by identifying its objective cause (description), assigning responsibility for the problem (normative) and identify how and who should fix the problem (performative). According to Stone (2012), causal stories become “mechanisms for linking a desired program to a problem that happens to be high on the policy agenda” (p. 227). The problem that the promise of genomics discourse identified was the growing threat to the government’s vision of Canada’s knowledge-based economy that was expected to generate prosperity, well-being and jobs. The promise of genomics discourse linked the Genome Canada proposal to the government’s promise of science vision for Canada’s economic future.

110

The promise of genomics discourse during the second mandate shifted slightly to emphasize applied genomics research and innovation in addition to basic genomics science and research, which had been the focus during the first mandate. Whereas, during the first mandate, the promise of genomics discourse framed basic genomics science and research as ends unto themselves, over the course of the second mandate the promise of genomics discourse re-framed advances in basic science as necessary steps leading to applied research and innovation, which would result in socio-economic benefits to Canada and Canadians. With this subtle discursive shift, the promise of genomics discourse was tightly linked the innovation policy discourse. For example, the operating principles and goals of the proposed governance framework for Genome Canada stated that: Genome Canada will support the following goals: Foster the development and application of genomic knowledge in health care, agriculture, forestry and fisheries and other targeted sectors for economic growth. . .[e]nsure the most productive use of Canada's genomic research efforts by marshalling current efforts, leveraging international and domestic investment and creating a national system of genomic research and innovation. (GV-IC-9, p. 3)

The promise of genomics discourse was framed around the applications of genomics in key sectors of Canada’s economy: “[Genome science] will also be the platform for scientific and technical advances towards crop improvement, forest maintenance and environmental protection” (TF-R-10, p. 8). Basic genomics science and research remained an important aspect of the discourse, but the relevance of genomics to “address[ing] issues of concern to Canadians” (TF-R-10, p. 1) was added as a key element of the promise of genomics discourse. As the “foundation for innovation in the 21st century” (TF-R-10, p. 8), genome science would not only provide a platform for scientific and technological advances that would improve competitiveness and productivity of Canada’s major industrial sectors; it would be responsive to Canada’s major policy priorities, addressing public concerns and hopes, related to health care, sustainable development and food security. Science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines shifted to emphasize the applications of future anticipated scientific and technological advances. This discursive shift was embodied in the GTF’s third report Genome Canada Blueprint and Principles: Genomics will provide the ability to harness the genetic machinery of cells, and to address the issues of concern to Canadians, including the need for new and

111

effective strategies for health care delivery, the need to deal with health and nutritional problems of a large and expanding human population, the need for environmentally sound use of agricultural land and natural resources, the need to participate in and benefit from emerging industrial opportunities, the need to provide students and researchers with tool [sic] for the future, through knowledge of the fundamentals of biology and the need to implement new technologies in a way that respects and preserves the environment and the social and ethical values of Canadians. (TF-R-10, p. 1)

Citing the need for “significant new investments. . .to make Canada competitive scientifically and economically viable in this emerging field of science and technology”, the promise of genomics discourse of the second mandate “emphasized scientific excellence, economic impact, effective coordination. . .and training as essential elements for success” (GV-GB-5, p. 1). The promise of genomics discourse was framed as a solution to recurring science policy issues such as research coordination, training, balancing basic and applied research, and maximizing government-academia-industry research collaborations. Moreover, the promise of genomics discourse of the second mandate envisioned a national return on investment that encompassed all eleven expectations of genomics storylines: This initiative promises to provide a number of outcomes and benefits. First, genome science promises to be a foundation for innovation in the 21st century. It is estimated that more than half of all new pharmaceuticals and diagnostics in the 21st century will come from genomics research. It will also be the platform for scientific and technical advances towards crop improvement, forest maintenance and environmental protection.

Second, advances in genomics promise discoveries relevant to Canada's high technology sectors and traditional, resource-based industries that are responsive to public concerns and hopes. . .Support for our environmental responsibilities will provide Canadians with specific benefits of significant value.

Third, this initiative will enhance the productivity of Canadian research in genomics and public policy. It will allow Canada to maintain a competitive pace of discovery and innovation, and allow access to international genomics research

112

efforts. This pace will be met with the strength of Canada's regard for the environment, for its social institutions, and for the well-being of its citizens and those of the world. Public consultation and research will anticipate the concerns, and address them in a timely and constructive manner. Fourth, we can calculate a return on investment from the number of individuals trained, the new firms and jobs created, the foreign investments that will be made in Canada and the value of product sales. (TF-R-10, p. 8) The vision represented in the promise of genomics discourse during the second mandate can be characterized as the promise of basic and applied genomics research and innovation in service to Canada’s economic future and social well-being.

Expectations of Genomics Story-lines

As the promise of genomics discourse became more complex in appealing to a broader range of policy actors in an expanded discourse-coalition, the expectations of genomics story-lines were the elements that gave the discourse cohesiveness, maintaining it as a coherent whole (Epstein, 2008). While the promise of genomics persisted as a single, multi-faceted, but vague and ambiguous discourse, the expectations of genomics story-lines were dynamic; some became less prominent, while others emerged as compelling ideas representative of the overall vision (Hajer, 1995). The expectations of genomics story-lines contributed to the subtle, but important, shift in the promise of genomics discourse during the second mandate. Science, technology and economic expectations of genomics story-lines remained predominant, while shifting in focus and content to articulate the promise of applied genomics and innovation with the promise of basic genomics research.

Science expectations of genomics story-lines linked the promise of basic research to the promise of applied research. Whereas, in the first mandate basic research (advances in basic science) were envisioned as ends unto themselves, during the second mandate basic genomics research became the critical step necessary for getting to applied genomics research, which would lead to innovation and related socio-economic impacts. The focus on expectations of specific scientific advances gave way to a science expectation story-line that stressed the importance of basic and applied genomics research to Canada’s future. Functional genomics was framed as the next major phase of genomics research that would make sense of the sequence data generated by the international genome project (TF-R-10). The science expectations story-line stressed the

113 importance of building national expertise and research capacity in functional genomics, not only for Canada’s international scientific reputation, but also for its economic future (GV-GB-21, GV-GB-33).

The national research system continued to be an element of the science expectations of genomics story-line with the existing research policy framework and granting system framed as incapable of responding adequately to the new challenges of genomics research and of succeeding in the new knowledge-based economy: Current program approaches do not adequately respond to new challenges. Program criteria operate to emphasize the sciences and discovery, and not the challenges associated with technology development, commercialization and diffusion. Granting programs often exclude industry and government researchers and do not adequately support the development of partnerships and networks. Traditional methods for making decisions and managing research programs have focused on those with the greatest expertise and research interest. As a result, decision-making has focused on performance criteria based on traditional research disciplines and goals. In a dynamic, knowledge-based society and given genomics' multidisciplinary attributes, a more participatory management framework is required - one that brings decision-making closer to stakeholders and citizens. (GV-IC-9, p. 1) In a briefing to the Biotechnology Deputy Ministers, Canada’s poor showing internationally was linked to the structural inadequacies of the existing system: “The current reality is that sources of funding and systems of accountability have become highly diverse and increasingly fragmented. Canada is falling behind, not only through serious under-funding but the lack of cohesive efforts” (GV-GB-34). The national research system needed to be reformed for Canada to “mobilize the sophisticated resources to achieve success in this field [genomics]” (TF-EC-2, p. 1). Genome Canada was framed as the solution The proposal to create Genome Canada recognizes that old approaches in support of genome sciences and research can not (sic) provide the basis for future innovation. It will be a multi-partner, research enterprise involving universities, public institutions, firms, research organizations and government laboratories. (GV-IC-9, p. 1)

114

The research system theme of the science expectations of genomics story-line envisioned a research system that was better coordinated with increased productivity and competitiveness and improved collaboration among government, industry and academia (TF-R-10, GV-IC-9, GV- GB-5, GV-GB-21). The science expectations of genomics story-line stressed the need for coordinating and managing a fragmented genome research infrastructure, alleviating concerns over duplication, more fully integrating academic, government and industry research efforts, which were limited under current funding programs that largely excluded government and industry. The science expectations of genomics story-line had identified a national research system that was not up to the challenge of the paradigm shift that genomics represented, but with Genome Canada it would be. Government-academic-industry collaborations would flourish and become “internationally renowned for their research and innovation, thereby attract[ing] investments and provid[ing] returns to the economy” (TF-R-10, p. 1). The science expectations story-line envisioned a research system that would “[f]oster greater cooperation, strategic alliances and horizontal action within the federal government, and among universities, industry, governments, public research organizations and financial institutions” (GV-IC-9, p. 3). The promise of genomics was not just about the promise of a revolutionary science, but also about a new way of doing biological research and organizing the national research system. Such discursive framing is exemplified in an internal document related to the merger of the GTF and NRC genomics research proposals: “In order that Canada develop a viable and internationally competitive Genome Sciences presence it is essential that any initiative in this area not be considered as ‘science as usual’. The scope and magnitude of the science is greater than any individual project, laboratory, centre or organization. . .This calls for a new way of doing things” (GV-GB-5, p. 6). The science expectations story-line anticipated benefits in terms of research competitiveness, productivity, coordination, integration, multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary.

The technology expectations of genomics story-line followed a similar discursive shift as the science expectations story-line. There was less emphasis on the anticipation of the development of specific technologies and techniques or promises of quantified performance improvements in existing genomics technologies and more focus on technological applications. During the second mandate the technology expectations story-line envisioned the development of sectoral-based technologies for medicine, agriculture, environment and natural resources. For example, in medicine, anticipated technological developments would target “challenges associated with Canada’s health system; critical disease and ageing concerns; key agricultural and crop

115 development issues; solutions for managing forest resources (GV-IC-7 n.p.). The technology expectations of genomics story-lines were generic and broad in envisaging the future advances in genomic technology, including “better, more effective drugs, diagnostics, benign bioactive components for the control of insects, weeds and pathogens, new crops that are more nutritious and higher yielding, forest protection and improvement, reduced requirements for pesticides and fertilizers in food production” (TF-R-10, p. 8). The technology expectations story-line highlighted the promise of new technologies that would bring new opportunities to industry and that would address key policy priorities, such as sustainable development and health care. For example: “There will be better tools with which to combat cancer, heart disease, complex genetic disorders, antibiotic resistance and newly emerging killer pathogens” (p. 2) and “. . .advances in genomics promise discoveries relevant to Canada’s high technology sector and traditional, resource-based industries that are responsive to public concerns and hopes” (p. 8) and “. . .within 10-20 years. . .new methods to manage disease, harvest crops and deal with environmental imperatives” (p. 2).

Technology platforms were a significant element of the technology expectations of genomics story-line. Technology platforms were framed as the driver for building research capacity and expertise in Canada: “The goal is to create the research expertise, methods and tools for the post- genomic world” (GV-IC-7 n.p.). The technology platforms were expected to provide access to leading edge tools and equipment that were common across all fields of genomic research, but too expensive for individuals or single laboratories to acquire. The technology platforms included high through-put DNA sequencing, genotyping, proteomics, bioinformatics, functional genomics, gene chip technology, vectors for gene therapy and MELSI. They would be housed at regional genome centres, which would provide services and support to genome researchers (TF- R-10, GV-GB-5).

Patenting continued to be a theme of the technology expectations of genomics story-line during the second mandate. There was growing concern over the “dramatic increase in patenting of key elements of plants, animals and human genomes by other countries” (GV-GB-34 slide 11). Patenting was perceived as “limiting Canadian access to strategic knowledge” (GV-GB-34 slide 11) that was essential for developing and commercializing technologies and products of strategic importance to Canada: “Canadian research labs and companies that depend upon R&D would be hobbled by license fees in developing new products or forbidden outright to use proprietary

116 technologies by licence holders wishing to protect markets. . .” (GV-GB-18, p. 13). Investments in Canadian genomics research would “’buy’ access to international R&D coalitions thus enabling Canada to exploit the global knowledge base at the same or faster pace than competitors” and “establish ownership/control/access to key elements of plant/animal/human genomes critical to Canadian interests” (GV-GB-34 slide 11). Crucially, developing Canadian genomics technology that could be protected through patenting would have significant economic benefits to Canadian companies: “Canadian biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies will avoid paying foreign licence fees for the patented genes and technologies used in new drug development” (GV-GB-18, p. 14). In the case of agriculture, Canadian genome research would “enable freedom to operate for a broad base of industry and public laboratories to commercialize the newly discovered genes controlling agriculturally useful traits” (GV-GB-21, p. 15). Intellectual property generated by Canadians was crucial if the country was going to be internationally competitive AND have the ‘freedom to operate’ in developing genomic-based solutions to uniquely Canadian problems, particularly for the agri-food sector. The freedom-to- operate element of the technology expectations story-line was particularly salient to AAFC’s vision of a genome future for Canada: Another benefit will be new platform technologies that will preserve the freedom to operate for a broad base of Canadian industries and public-sector institutions so that they can bring the products of their biotechnology innovations to the market in support of the Canadian agri-food sector. (GV-GB-21, p. 4)

With the discursive shift in the science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines, and the shift in primary audience to government bureaucrats and politicians, collectively, the socio- economic expectations of genomics story-lines (economic, society, health, environment, policy, culture, organization, training, and status) took on greater salience during the second mandate, reflecting the existing promise of science policy discourse, which was pervasive throughout the broader economic policy discourse. The socio-economic expectations of genomics story-lines articulated with the economic benefits and the social impacts envisioned in the promise of science-based economic policy discourse. The economic expectations of genomics story-line focused on applications of genomics research in key economic sectors and became more ‘technical’ with the discursive framing of return on investments estimates. The policy expectations of genomics story-line stressed the importance of genomics basic and applied research to the success of the Canadian biotechnology strategy. The status expectations of

117 genomics story-line framed Canada at cross-road, at risk of losing its international reputation as a scientifically advanced nation unless it took steps to re-gain its leadership position with strategic investments in high priority areas. The health, environment, society, culture, organization and training expectations of genomics story-lines remained relatively unchanged from the first mandate and did not significantly contribute to the effects of the promise of genomics discourse during the second mandate.

Advantages to Canada’s key economic sectors were envisioned through the economic expectations of genomics story-line: Of the substantive benefits that will accrue from genome science, one of the most important is to the industrial sectors that drive the prosperity of Canada, such as agriculture, forestry and health care, and industries which support genomics itself such as robotics and communications. (GV-GB-1 n.p.). The economics expectations of genomics story-line discursively framed a direct relationship between genomics research and benefits to industry and the national economy: The impact of genomics would ripple through the Canadian economy. Canadian markets in agriculture and forest products, over 70% of which is exported, would be protected by research programs that maintained their high quality and capacity of meeting international standards; investment in life sciences research would increase as pharmaceutical/biotechnology R&D companies were encouraged by a strong commitment to genomics to relocate or start up in Canada. This multiplier effect would extend to increases in the number of high technology Canadian jobs, encouraging young Canadian science graduates to remain in Canada. (GV-GB-18, p. 14)

The biotechnology industry was a key element of the economy expectations of genomics story- line. Genomics was the critical success factor for the biotechnology industry. Without genomics research Canada’s biotechnology industry would not realize its potential: “Consequences of NOT having a strong national initiative in the genomics revolution would be disastrous to our biotechnology industry” (GV-GB-1, p. 6). The commercialization of genome-based technologies for medicine, agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and manufacturing would create new “economic confidence that will translate into increased Canadian and foreign investment in research and technology” (TF-R-10, p. 5). Productivity and competitiveness were key elements of the

118 economic expectations of genomics story-line: “It [Genome Canada] will marshal Canada’s current genome science and attract new investment to Canadian initiatives. It will accelerate Canada’s productivity by bringing together the individual, complementary strengths of Canadians into a collective research program” (TF-R-10, p. 5). The agriculture sector was particularly targeted to benefit from the promise of genomics: “Canadian farmers will be able to expand the growth range for traditional crops, improve meat quality, improve productivity. This will allow Canada to remain competitive in the export market. . .” (TF-R-10, p. 1). The promise of genomics held significant economic opportunities for the Canadian agriculture sector as “the basis for the development of future Canadian crops that are resistant to diseases and insects; can better withstand stresses such as cold and heat; have better yield and quality attributes” (GV-GB- 21, p. 4). Crop genomics research promised a rare opportunity for Canada to gain a competitive advantage and leadership position in the “development of superior crops for Canadian agriculture” (GV-GB-21, p. 3), which would lead to environmental and economic benefits.

The economy expectations of genomics story-line took on a subtle, but decidedly different framing during the second mandate, as the promise of genomics discourse transitioned into the political arena. The economy expectations of genomics story-line was framed around technical economic terms and included estimates of a return on investment in genomics basic and applied research and innovation (GV-GB-34; TF-R-10). In appealing to the governments’ preference for connecting research directly to economic outcomes, the third GTF report Genome Canada: Blueprint and Principles (TF-R-10), which was targeted for the federal government and distributed to politicians in December 1998, introduced a return on investment element to the economy expectations of genomics story-line (TF-R-10): “For each dollar of federal investment, this initiative promises a return of new jobs, a renewed biotechnology industry, growth of new firms, increased domestic and foreign investment and more skills for Canadian workers. . .and will result in significant returns for those who invest” (TF-R-10, p. 3, p. 5). The proposed five- year, $500m genome research program, with a federal investment of $250m was expected to deliver significant economic benefits for Canadian: “It promises a return to every Canadian of new jobs, firms, investment and quality of life” (TF-R-10, p. 8). Over the five-year period, the anticipated ‘return on investment’ included 20 new core companies representing “1 to 3 top tier successes” creating “500 to 1000 new jobs in industry”, $1b in new venture capital investments in Canadian genome companies, 25 new users generating $500m in product sales and “2000 new

119 genomics-related jobs and two major investments in Canada by multinational companies worth $100 -300m over five years” (TF-R-10, p. 9).

With the transition of the promise of genomics discourse into the political arena, the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines were interpreted, translated and disseminated by policy advisor-knowledge brokers who briefed colleagues, senior bureaucrats and Cabinet Ministers about the promise of genomics and the promise of Genome Canada for Canada’s future. Hajer (1995) notes that “knowledge becomes politically relevant once it is transcribed into a higher order (political) discourse” (p. 61). Litfin (1994) highlights the discursive power of knowledge brokers in translating complex discourse into policy-relevant discourse and promoting specific policy proposals. According to Litfin (1994), knowledge brokers possess the skills needed to translate the work of researchers, “identifying policy- relevant angles in it and framing it in language accessible to decision makers” (p. 37). Both of these discursive dynamics were evident in a November 1998 briefing of the Biotechnology Deputy Ministers Coordinating Committee about the Investing in Biotechnology Memorandum to Cabinet being led by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The briefing also serves to demonstrate the evolution of the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines in the political arena during the second mandate. As part of the briefing, the Deputy Ministers were provided with a Prospectus for Genome Canada, (GV-GB-34), which drew extensively from the GTF’s Blueprint report (TF-R-10) but adapted to serve a political purpose of convincing the Deputy Ministers to support the Genome Canada option for funding genomics research. Without the support of the seven biotechnology Deputy Ministers, the Genome Canada proposal would not be successful (GV-ID-10).

Of particular interest to understanding the role of promise of genomics discourse in shaping genome research funding decisions is the translation of the return on investment element of economic expectations of genomics story-line in the GTF’s Blueprint report into a higher order political discourse. During the briefing the Deputy Ministers were told: “[The proposal] promises a return to every Canadian of twenty dollars each year (emphasis added) in terms of new jobs, firms and investment” (GV-GB-34, p. 8). The Blueprint did not assign a dollar value to the return for Canadians. The Prospectus estimated that over the five-year investment period (1999-2004), the expected returns on investment would be that three major foreign companies would be established in Canada with an estimated value of $500m, 20 new core companies

120 would be formed, representing a value of $150m, there would be $1b of investment in Canadian genomics companies, 1000 new direct biotechnology/genomics industrial jobs created with an estimated value of $50m, 5000 related service jobs worth $250m, 1000 new academic jobs worth $50m and $1b in genomics-related sales (GV-GB-34). The estimated total value of returns on the recommended federal investment of $290m over five years was $3 billion (GV-GB-34). The Blueprint report did not include estimates of total value of returns expected from the federal investment. Furthermore, the GTF’s Blueprint report called for a federal investment of $250m over five years (TF-R-10), while the briefing recommended a federal investment of $290m, which included $103m for “strategic investments in applications” through “investments in federal research competencies” (GV-GB-34, p. 7) that was not part of the budget outlined in Blueprint. While this may appear a relatively minor ‘translation’ of the economic expectations of genomics story-line, it highlights the power of knowledge brokers in defining the terms of discourse (Litfin, 1994), which would prove crucial as the promise of genomics discourse and the Genome Canada proposal moved deeper into the political arena during the third mandate. Litfin (1994) has emphasized the discursive power of knowledge brokers to translate and frame discourse in ways that make sense to policy makers, especially under conditions of scientific uncertainty. Aside from framing the promise of genomics within the biotechnology policy discourse, knowledge brokers played a limited role during the second mandate, as they were uncertain how to interpret and translate the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines into policy-relevant language. According to Ms Nymark the under- determinancy (Epstein, 2008) of genomics significantly hampered their efforts to put genomics and Genome Canada at the top of the political agenda. In her case study on the creation of Genome Canada, she explains: Genomics was all too new. There was limited data and no time to gather more data. There had been little public discussion and virtually no political interest. While scientists knew of the potential impact, it had yet to become widely known and understood. Without data and public interest, in this emerging field, it was an uphill battle. (GV-ID-10, p. 6)

The status expectations of genomics story-line continued to make a compelling argument about Canada’s international reputation. It positioned Canada at a crossroad where crucial decisions were needed not just to make up lost ground, but to move ahead in key areas of genomics research critical to Canada’s future (GV-GB-34). The status expectations of genomics story-line

121 envisioned a federal investment that would marshal research and technology assets “into a national effort that will move Canada to the international forefront of genome science and innovation” (TF-R-10, p. 3). Investment in a nationally coordinated genomics research program would allow Canada to re-gain an international leadership position in strategic areas of genomic research. The international leadership dimension of the status expectations of genomics story- line was evident in various GTF data items, including internal documents (TF-ID-3), reports (TF-R-16) and external communications (TF-EC-3, TF-EC-15) as well as genomics policy documents (GV-GB-5, GV-GB-21) and internal government communications (GV-IC-7). Being left behind and left out were very powerful elements of the status expectation story-line that appeared in briefings to Deputy Ministers. For example: “Around the world, countries have placed genomics research at top of their science strategies. On a per capita basis, Canada is far behind key trading partners” (GV-GB-34 slide 11 speaker’s notes) and: “Canada is falling behind, not only through serious under-funding but also through the lack of cohesive efforts” (GV-GB-34, p. 4).

The policy expectations of genomics story-line was predominantly framed around the implementation of the recently approved Canadian Biotechnology Strategy. Genomics was essential not only to the success of the CBS, but to Canada’s future: “Canada is at a crossroads—does the future offered by genomics research come sooner or later or not at all?” (GV-GB-34 slide 11 speaker’s notes). In fact, the policy expectations of genomics story-line during the second mandate emphasized not just the promise of genomics, but the promise of Genome Canada for realizing the future promised by genomics. Litfin (1994) considers discourse as determinants of what can and cannot be thought, thus defining the policy options available for debate and thereby serving as precursors of policy outcomes. While there were at least two other major genome research program proposals (NRC, AAFC), the Genome Canada proposal by the GTF became the primary means by which the promise of genomics was discursively framed for senior policy advisors and key decision-makers (GV-GB-34).

At the November 1998 CBS DM Committee briefing, Deputy Ministers were presented with the Genome Canada proposal as the preferred of three possible policy options for addressing the urgent priority for investment in Canadian genome research (GV-GB-34). The promise of genomics was discursively framed mostly within the science, technology, status and economic expectations of genomics story-lines with far-ranging benefits for Canadians to “benefit from a

122 worldwide genomics revolution” (GV-GB-34 slide 10) The promise of genomics discourse highlighted the risks to Canada of not investing in genomics research and the inadequacies of the “old program and funding strategies” to support future innovation (GV-GB-34 slide 12). The issue was not just of funding, but of better coordinating efforts. The first policy option presented to the DMs was for a national genomics enterprise—Genome Canada, which would be “built on government-university-industry partnerships” through a federal investment of $293m over five years that “establishes the national enterprise [Genome Canada], provides assured federal research role and ensures federal leadership” and leverages an additional $200m in external funds (GV-GB-34 slide 13). The second genome R&D policy option was a ‘bridging strategy’ that “only postpones need to make significant investments-will not lever substantial funds from external funds” (GV-GB-34 slide 14). The bridging strategy recommended a $20m investment focused on two strategies: (1) develop a national enterprise that include governance, critical platforms, a national bioinformatics network and ethics initiatives and (2) investments in federal research. The second policy option represented an internal federal government initiative that “responds to external advice to make strategic choices and measured commitments. . .in high priority areas where immediate outcomes possible” (GV-GB-34 slide 14). The third policy option for genome research was discursively framed as “life support” that would “create [a] Genome Canada governance structure” as “a national ‘bureau’ to carry out consultations, promote importance of genomics research, build public confidence” with a $1m investment (GV- GB-34 slide 15). Both the bridging strategy and life support policy options were discursively framed as inferior to the national genomics enterprise (Genome Canada) option in that neither fully or adequately addressed the urgency of the genome research funding issue that Canada was facing: “This blueprint for action is based on the urgent need to act and marshal Canada’s genome research and technology assets. A new national scientific enterprise is proposed, Genome Canada, one that creates a coalition of interests” (GV-GB-34, p. 50). The promise of genomics as reflected in the Genome Canada proposal was a nationally supported vision that would “address a full spectrum of research and technology concerns” and would “address this country’s research and innovation gaps and translate knowledge into innovation” (GV-GB-34, p. 52). The promise of Genome Canada embodied the vision of the promise of science that had infused the broader policy discourse during the second mandate: Genome Canada promises to be a cost efficient investment that will increase Canada’s research productivity and result in significant returns for those that

123

invest. It offers an integrated approach to accelerating innovation in genomics. The concern for the development of future research platforms and its effort in support of technology development and commercialization will provide new economic confidence that will translate in increased Canadian and foreign investment in research and technology. (GV-GB-34, p. 52-53) The role of knowledge brokers in the policy process is influential, not because they are particularly powerful political actors, but because of their discursive competence to set the terms of the discourse to promote a single policy option (Litfin, 1994).

The policy expectations of genomics story-line also included the role that genomics would play in supporting the biotechnology regulatory system, which was under extreme pressure from the rapid development of market-ready biotechnology products. AAFC was cognizant of the risks of a regulatory system that did not have a science capacity on par with industry and that genomics research was an essential element of that capacity (INT-15): “. . .the Department’s scientific capacity to invest in the kind of technology and research in the rapidly evolving genomics area was falling behind” (GV-ID-10, p. 5). The Genome Canada proposal became the vehicle through which AAFC envisioned building its science capacity as part of the Memorandum to Cabinet led by AAFC requesting “funding for research and development and the regulation of biotechnology” (GV-ID-10, p. 5).

GE3LS research was another element of the policy expectations of genomics story-line that continued to be prominent during the second mandate. It was envisioned as the means by which concerns about genomics would be addressed and public understanding of the benefits of genomics would be achieved: “Genomics presents society with new and difficult ethical, legal and social issues. Genome Canada will include an active research program to develop basic policy resources for researchers, industry, government and the public at large” (TF-R-1-, p. 5). In fact, GE3LS was one of the seven research and technology platforms of the Genome Canada proposed program elements and was promoted as an area of unique Canadian expertise (TF-R- 10).

The health expectations of genomics story-line remained largely unchanged from the first mandate of improving the health of Canadians and the Canadian healthcare system: “Of the substantive benefits that will accrue from genome science. . .is the well-being of Canadians, exemplified by a health care system which will benefit enormously from participation in

124 genomics science and its discoveries and applications” (GV-GB-1 n.p.). The promise of genomics offered new approaches to health care such as personalized medicine: “The approach to medical care will change radically as genetic knowledge allows treatment and prevention strategies to be tailored to individuals rather than based on trial and error” (TF-EC-2, p. 4). Furthermore, health expectations of genomics envisioned that personalized medicine would encompass a broad spectrum of health issues: “Applications in medical diagnosis, treatment and prevention will enable an entirely new approach to health care, based on in-depth knowledge of the needs of individuals. This has the potential. . .to combat cancer, infectious disease and neurological problems” (TF-R-10, p. 1). A more effective, accessible and efficient healthcare system was also envisioned (TF-R-10).

The environment expectations of genomics story-line maintained a similar message as that of the first mandate: Genomics research would lead to new technologies and techniques for improved resources management and environmental sustainability (GV-GB-6, GV-GB-21, GV-IC-7, TF- EC-2, TF-EC-15, TF-R-10). With the release of AAFC’s Canadian Crop Genomics Initiative in August 1998, environmentally sustainable agriculture production was a prominent element of the environment expectations of genomics story-line. Genomics research would lead to reduced pesticide and fertilizer usage, which would make food safer and more affordable: “Genomics research offers a rare opportunity for Canadians to reduce our reliance on pesticides and fertilizers for food production, make the business of food production more sustainable and environmentally friendly, [and] ensure a safe and affordable food supply for the future. . .” (GV- GB-21, p. 3-4).

Ideational and Material Effects of the Promise of Genomics Discourse

The focus of the advocacy efforts shifted during the second mandate from the academic/scientific community at the Medical Research Council to a wider range of policy actors including academia, industry and most importantly, government policy actors, including policy advisors (bureaucrats) and Cabinet Ministers (politicians) within the federal government. During the second mandate, the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines continued to be debated and interpreted in the polis (Braun, 1999; Stone, 2012) within an expanding discourse-coalition. With the decision to seek funding for Genome Canada through

125 a Memorandum to Cabinet, the primary task during the second mandate was to ‘move’ the promise of genomics discourse into the political arena, both horizontally and vertically.

Rather than a homogenous entity, the federal government is a highly diverse, fragmented and hierarchal organization. Consensus and agreement do not come easily within the political arena (INT-15). There is considerable disagreement and debate over policy decisions between, among and within the various departments and agencies at the various hierarchal levels of the federal government (INT-15; INT-16). Genomics was an emerging, novel and complex science, difficult to explain to non-experts. It was also associated with on-going, unresolved risks and ethical issues. Not only did the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines have to make a compelling argument for basic and applied genome science, research and innovation to Canada’s socio-economic future, it also had to convince the federal government hierarchy (1) that Canada’s lack of funding for genomics was threatening Canada’s economic and scientific international competitiveness, (2) that existing institutional and policy frameworks were inadequate to meet the challenge of genome research even with increased funding, (3) that Genome Canada, an “arms-length alternative delivery model” (GV-ID-10, p. ii) was the only policy option, and (4) that the concerns “surrounding control and accountability and delegating responsibility and significant public funding to an agency outside government” (GV-ID-10, p. 2) would be addressed. The productive and generative power of the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines of the second mandate had limited effect in persuading federal government policy makers to completely step into the promise of genomics subject- position. Canadian genome scientists knew what the promise of genomics represented, and they had been successful as discursive agents in convincing certain government policy actors of the promise of genomics. Genome science was still shrouded in uncertainty, policy makers had some sense that genomics was important, but they could not make sense of its promise for Canada in the way that the scientists were envisioning it. The policy outcome of the second mandate was bitterly disappointing to the GTF.

The most relevant policy initiative during the second mandate was the Investing in Biotechnology Memorandum to Cabinet (GV-ID-10) that resulted in $55m of funding for biotechnology research in the federal laboratories announced in the 1999 federal budget (GV- ED-10). The funding represented the culmination of a series of policy decisions and actions during the second mandate that were motivated and shaped by the promise of genomics

126 discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines (Table 4.3). This section discusses the ideational and material effects of the promise of genomics discourse in the context of those decisions and actions leading to the budget announcement. It is necessary, first, to explain the government’s thinking behind the $55m allocated for biotechnology research in the science- based departments and agencies (SBDA), in order to justify interpreting the outcome as an effect of the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines.

Table 4.3. Ideational and material effects of promise of genomics discourse during the second mandate.

Activity Decision Ideational Effect Material Effect

Investing in AAFC decides to Shaping interests Attracting/Mobilizing Biotechnology take lead in drafting support Memorandum to Memorandum to Producing subject- Cabinet Cabinet: Investing in positions Attracting/Mobilizing Biotechnology, funding requesting funding Altering/creating new for (1) regulation of ways of thinking Coordinating products of activities biotechnology, (2) Intersubjective biotechnology cooperation Expanding the research in federal discourse-coalition laboratories, (3) Genome Canada Guiding the direction of research CBS-RD agrees to champion Genome Canada proposal as part of the Memorandum to Cabinet

Memorandum to Cabinet signed by seven ‘biotechnology’ Ministers

Memorandum to Cabinet approved by Cabinet

$55m announced in federal budget for

127

biotechnology in federal laboratories

Despite being referred to as ‘biotechnology’ and the absence of references to genomics in the 1999 federal budget documents, it was generally accepted that the funding announced in the 1999 federal budget was for ‘genomics’ research. The Memorandum to Cabinet, which had been signed by the seven ‘CBS’ Ministers and approved by Cabinet, made an explicit request for “funding for federal science departments for genome research” (GV-ID-10, p. 6). In its reporting of the 1999 Budget, Research Money, eliminated any doubts about the intention of the $55m. With the headline “BUDGET BACKS GENOME RESEARCH WITH $55 MILLION OVER THREE YEARS” (MD-63), Research Money reported that “Although not stated in any Budget documents, it is exclusively earmarked for genome research” (MD-63). In response to the budget announcement, Roy Atkinson confirmed the government’s commitment to genome research, encouraging Genome Canada to “continue to believe in the vision”. He confirmed that the $55m was a “good first step” to making “sure genome research happens in Canada” (MD-63). A senior advisor from AAFC also referred to the funding as “a signal that government is committed to genome research” (MD-63). Dr. Friesen made it clear that SBDAs had benefitted from the promise of genomics discourse: “I believe that those departments that are receiving support should be mindful that discussions held under the Genome Canada banner enabled them to be in this budget” (MD-63). That the money was intended for genomics research was confirmed by several individuals who I interviewed (INT-3, INT-15). In her case study about the creation of Genome Canada, Christine Nymark14 argued that framing the $55m as funding for biotechnology research was an indication of the government’s lack of understanding of genomics, not its lack of interest: “Genomics was not a known or understood term in government. . .what was the real potential of this science. . .Genomics was all too new” (GV-ID-10, p. 6). While there are no explicit references to genomics in the 1999 Budget announcement, I believe there is sufficient evidence indicating that the decision to allocate $55m to biotechnology research was a material effect of the promise of genomics discourse. In discussing the ideational and material effects of the promise of genomics discourse during the second mandate (Table 4.3), I use a narrative,

14 Ms Nymark led the drafting of both Memoranda to Cabinet.

128 chronological approach to trace the Memorandum to Cabinet process from its inception to outcome, focusing on key decisions and events during the second mandate, and relate my findings to the theoretical concepts reviewed in Chapter 2. The memorandum to cabinet process of the second mandate reflects the generative power of the promise of genomics discourse in shaping the interests, identities, ways of thinking and subject-positions of federal government policy actors (Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994; Stone, 2012). Materially, the promise of genomics discourse was powerful in attracting and mobilizing support and coordinating the activities of policy actors, horizontally across multiple federal departments and vertically within each of those departments. The promise of genomics discourse was also powerful in mobilizing funding for genomics research, although not quite in the way envisioned by GTF.

Horizontal and vertical coordination expanding the discourse-coalition and mobilizing support for the promise of genomics – Investing in Biotechnology Memorandum to Cabinet

The Memorandum to Cabinet process began with the decision by AAFC (Policy Branch) “to seek funding for research and development and regulation of biotechnology” (GV-ID-10, p. 5). AAFC had concerns that its ability to regulate was falling behind the capacity of industry to develop new biotechnology products; AAFC felt it needed to make an investment in science and the regulatory system (GV-ID-10, INT-15). The threat to meeting the regulatory mandate was articulated by an interviewee: “And both ADMS came back very clearly saying we have regulatory responsibilities and we do not have the research capacity to keep up with industry and to carry out that inspection responsibility effectively” (INT-15). At about the same time, the R&D Committee of the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Secretariat (CBS-RD) had reviewed the GTF’s Genomics: A Platform for the New Century report (TF-R-2) and agreed about “the need for funding genomics in Canada, if Canada was not to be left behind in this game” (GV-ID- 10, p. 5). Genomics had been identified as the top priority for biotechnology research during the CBS consultations (GV-GB-34). While the GTF’s Platform (TF-R-2) report was perceived as too academic to appeal to government decision makers, it was a “compelling vision, with great support from the scientific community across Canada” and represented the only “creative thinking about other program options” (GV-ID-10, p. 5). The CBS Secretariat agreed “to champion the creation of Genome Canada with concurrent requests for funds for government science departments for genomics research and the regulation of products of biotechnology” (GV-ID-10, p. 5), through the CBS R&D Committee. However, the CBS Secretariat did not see

129

“its role as proposing particular policy initiatives”, but as a coordinating the process and related activities for developing a policy proposal (INT-15). AAFC-Policy agreed to take the lead in preparing the Memorandum to Cabinet, a process that involved the seven CBS departments, the MRC and the NRC (GV-ID-10, INT-15). The CBS-RD coordinated the Genome Canada briefing sessions for senior bureaucrats and Cabinet Ministers.

These initial decisions—CBS-RD championing the Genome Canada proposal and coordinating the MC process and AAFC-Policy leading the MC process—represent both ideational and material effects of the promise of genomics discourse. AAFC-Policy envisioned the promise of genomics in the context of its policy and regulatory mandate. Its interests, preferences and position were shaped through the science, technology and policy expectations of genomics story- lines: “. . .the Department’s scientific capacity to invest in the kind of technology and research in the rapidly evolving genomics areas was falling behind” (GV-ID-10, p. 5). The CBS-RD interpreted the promise of genomics discourse as a means to operationalize certain elements of the new biotechnology strategy. The CBS-RD envisioned the promise of genomics within its horizontal management approach to the new biotechnology strategy, which was “critical to. . .enhance the advancement of knowledge and add new impetus to innovation in strategic areas” (TF-ID-29, p. 1). A former ADM directly involved in the CBS Secretariat described the promise of genomics in the context of the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy as “[i]t kind of puts meat on the skeleton of our biotechnology strategy, which is a lot of process and a lot of legal and social issues, but not a lot of meat on the bones” (INT-4). The promise of genomics discourse offered “an innovative new way of managing R&D in Canada [that will] provide for integrated management/priority setting across the range of institutions and organizations that fund and/or perform R&D” (TF-ID-29, p. 1). The promise of genomics discourse was beginning to shape the interests of the CBS-RD and create new ways of how it thought about how research might be managed and funded. While the CBS-RD and AAFC-Policy had differing interests and priorities, each was able to support the promise of genomics discourse and the Genome Canada proposal and to collaborate on developing the MC. Litfin (1994) refers to this common support and cooperation as intersubjective cooperation.

In addition to the early ideational effects of shaping interests and preferences, creating new ideas or ways of thinking about departmental mandates and intersubjective cooperation, there were material effects of the promise of genomics discourse during the second mandate. The promise

130 of genomics discourse-coalition expanded. The promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines had created powerful promise of genomics subject-positions. Two influential federal government policy actors (CBS-RD, AAFC-Policy) had adopted the promise of genomics subject-position and were advocating for the promise of genomics, mobilizing support and coordinating the activities of the seven CBS departments. Moving the MC through the policy process involved gaining the support of the seven CBS Ministers (GV-ID-10), which was described as “a monumental endeavour of horizontal networking and cooperation” (GV-ID- 10, p. 7). Konrad (2006) describes expectations of science and technology as ‘coordination devices’ that “motivate heterogeneous actors. . .to engage in promising innovation fields” (p. 429). The coordinating dynamics of expectations operate “both at the levels of networks of co- operating actors as well as, more indirectly, between wider actors in an innovation fields” (Konrad, 2006, p. 430). Through the CBS-RD, the promise of genomics discourse was disseminated to policy advisors in the seven CBS departments, who then translated, reproduced and interpreted the promise genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines in briefings with their Ministers. In doing so, those policy advisors stepped into a promise of genomics subject-position, taking up the promise of genomics discourse in ways that articulated and aligned the interests, preferences and priorities of their departments and further expanded the promise of genomics discourse-coalition.

CBS Ministers and Cabinet adopt promise of genomics policy position – approving Investing in Biotechnology MC.

A three-part MC was developed; it included requests for funding for (1) Genome Canada, (2) genome research in federal science departments, (3) regulation of products of biotechnology. Importantly, by signing the Memorandum to Cabinet, all seven CBS Ministers took up a subject- position that represented a policy position (Epstein, 2008), signaling to their Cabinet colleagues that they believed their Ministerial preferences, interests and priorities would be served by the promise of genomics. Each of the seven CBS Ministers may have envisioned a different meaning for the promise of genomics in the context of their department mandates, but all were united by the promise of genomics. The MC did not get to Cabinet until January 1999, only a month before the federal budget. Cabinet approved the MC in principle (GV-ID-10). In giving its approval to the Memorandum (GV-ID-10), Cabinet also took up the promise of genomics subject-position, expressing a policy position on the promise of genomics. Epstein (2008) argues that state subject-positions are policy positions: “. . . state subject-positions are also policy positions, or

131 rather the former are the basis for the latter. . .Hence, subject-positions both found, and provide a principle of coherence for, the states’ policies” (Epstein, 2008, p. 202).15 Cabinet represents the decision-making body of the Government of Canada, therefore, by approving the MC, Cabinet expressed a policy position on the promise of genomics.

Funding federal ‘biotechnology’ research – responding to genomic under- determinancy.

Beyond the expansion of the promise of genomics discourse-coalition and the obvious coordination of activities among the CBS departments in drafting the MC, the most obvious material effect of the promise of genomics discourse during the second mandate was the funding announcement in the 1999 federal budget of $55m over three years for biotechnology research in the federal science-based departments and agencies (GV-ED-1, GV-ED-2, GV-ED-3): Finally, many believe that Canada has the capacity to become even more of a world leader in the field of biotechnology, one of the fastest growing of all new technologies. This has huge potential applications ranging from agriculture and forestry to manufacturing and medicine. As a result, we are committing $55 million over the next three years to further support biotechnology research in science-based government departments. (GV-ED-1, p. 21) This decision indicates that the federal government has tentatively begun to reconceptualize its policy interests and priorities and recognize new opportunities within the context of the promise of genomics (Hajer, 1995). Materially, it demonstrates the power of the promise of genomics discourse to attract and mobilize political support and funding. The $55m for genome research in federal laboratories is clearly a transformation of existing policy frameworks that alters the direction of research in the federal government.

With the focus in the second mandate on persuading the federal government to support the Genome Canada proposal, the promise of genomics discourse was predominantly framed within the context of the biotechnology policy discourse. Framing the MC within the context of the biotechnology policy discourse gave both AAFC-Policy and CBS-RD an opening to bring the

15 While Epstein (2008) studies state interactions in international politics, I believe that the concept of subject- positions taken up by the state has relevance to this study.

132 promise of genomics discourse into the political arena for the first time.16 Both policy actors articulated the promise of genomics discourse with the broader economic policy discourse that framed biotechnology as a key driver of the Canadian economy. During the second mandate both policy actors shaped their interests and identities around the promise of genomics research to serve their biotechnology mandates, which was a key element of the economic policy discourse and therefore more easily relatable to government decision-makers. The request in the Memorandum to Cabinet was for genomics research for federal laboratories. The federal government responded to the request by discursively framing genomics as biotechnology. The $55m in funding for federal biotechnology research is evidence of the federal government’s tentative step into the promise of genomics subject-position by taking a ‘more comfortable’ policy position with biotechnology. It is indicative of the uncertainty that policy advisors and policy makers felt about genomics, which according to Epstein (2008) is due to the discursive underdetermination of genomics.

Genomics was still a new and emerging science. The international genome effort to map and sequence the human and the other genomes was making rapid progress and was “transform[ing] the way many biologists think about genes and genetics and even about the meaning of the genome project itself” (Keller, 2000, p. 6). The magnitude and scope of the complexity of the genome was unexpected and scientists were grappling with the indeterminacy of the foundational concepts on which the genome project was grounded (Keller, 2000). A definition of ‘genomics’ and ‘the genome’ were still not scientifically validated. The biological understanding of the gene was shifting amidst the realization that there were far fewer genes in the human genome than originally estimated and that their functional interactions were far more complex than the ‘one gene – one protein’ theory that had guided the project, initially (Portin, 1993). If the genome scientists working on the international genome project could not agree on what a genome was and how genes functioned and interacted in fundamental biological processes, how could the promise of genomics be explained to government policy advisors and policy makers?

16 It was not the first time that an MC was used to request funding for genomics research, but it is unlikely that there was any institutional memory of the initiative, which took place under a very different political environment in 1992 (GV-ID-50).

133

‘Genomics’ and ‘the genome’ were new, underdetermined discursive terms that were profoundly reshaping the promise of science policy discourse (Epstein, 2008). Their meanings were still indeterminant—not yet fixed within scientific or policy discourses. Policy actors did not have a clear sense of what exactly ‘genomics’ and ‘the genome’ were beyond a complicated, revolutionary science that they could not understand, but seemed important. Under such discursive uncertainty, policy makers turned to ‘biotechnology’ to temporarily fill the meaning gap. Policy advisors and policy makers, accepting that genomics could be important, began to reconceptualize their interests and priorities (Hajer, 1995) around genomics, but within the context of biotechnology, a more determined, pre-existing promise of science policy discourse. Crucially, the most salient effect of promise of genomics discourse during the second mandate was in creating an awareness in and altering the cognitive patterns (ways of thinking) of a diverse and heterogeneous group of federal government policy actors, horizontally across federal departments and vertically within departments about the promise of genomics for Canada. The promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines did not have sufficient persuasive power during the second mandate to convince policy makers to fully take up the promise of genomics subject-position but were persuasive enough to convince them that the promise of genomics warranted further attention and to take tentative steps into the promise of genomics subject-position, which would lead to more profound effects of the promise of genomics discourse during the third mandate.

Third Mandate—Memorandum to Cabinet II

The third and final mandate—Memorandum to Cabinet 2 (MC-2) extended from February 1999 to March 2000 with the federal budget announcement of $160m investment to establish Genome Canada (GV-ED-20) in February 2000 and the signing of the Funding Agreement (TF-ID-17) in March 2000.

Policy Discourse and the Promise of Science

The overall tone of the policy discourse during the third mandate was one of confidence and optimism for the future. The country’s economy was strong, the deficit was eliminated, unemployment was low and there was another federal budget surplus. Canada was expected to be among the top performing economies of the G7 (GV-ED-1). The new century and millennium held great promise for the future and Canada was well positioned to seize the opportunities of the

134 future. From the title of the 1999 federal budget: Building Today for a Better Tomorrow (GV- ED-10) to the promise of the future outlined in the Speech from the Throne (GV-ED-17) and the Prime Minister’s vision of how “Canada will take on the world, and win, in the 21st century” (GV-ED-39 n.p.), the future dominated the policy discourse. For example, the 1999 Budget Speech by the Finance Minister framed the new century as a new beginning with Canada charting a new course for its future: “Mr. Speaker, as a new century beckons, we can now say with confidence that a new beginning is truly at hand. . .We are freer than we have been in a generation to chart a new course for ourselves” (GV-ED-1, p. 28). In his response to the 1999 Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister envisioned Canada’s bold future for the new century as one filled with pride, hope and optimism: We are now 75 days from the turn of the new century. As the current century draws to a close, the century Laurier predicted would be the century of Canada, it is appropriate to pause and reflect on where we have come from. What we have achieved together. Why we enter the next century with such confidence, such hope and such optimism. . .The world values what we have accomplished. It wants us to succeed. And succeed we will. We will build on our strengths. We will take bold action for the future (GV-ED-39 n.p.) Preparing for the 21st century was a common theme throughout the policy documents.

With $1.97b over three years of science and innovation funding in the 1999 federal budget (GV- ED-10) and the promise of science discourse in the October 1999 Speech from the Throne (GV- ED-17), the government had clearly established science, research and innovation as a national priority (MD-72, MD-129). Science policy dominated the policy agenda over the twelve months leading up to the 2000 budget. High expectations for the promise of science defined the economic policy discourse throughout the third mandate. For example, the Finance Minister framed his vision for the economy in the context of knowledge and innovation: Much of our economic challenge can be summarized in two words—knowledge and innovation. These are the new raw materials of the 21st century economy. . .Innovation and knowledge are two sides of the same coin—the true hard currency of the future, the sources of sustained growth (GV-ED-1, p. 19) Science and technology were directly implicated in the successful transition to the knowledge- based economy: “Science and technology occupy a much more prominent place in the knowledge-based economy than they did in the past, largely due to their power to enhance our

135 understanding of the world around us and add value to the products and services we use” (STP- 17, p. 1). The promise of science was envisioned to play a critical role in advancing Canada’s productivity growth. The 1999 Budget Plan highlighted the role of knowledge and innovation in contributing to productivity: “In the modern economic environment, knowledge and innovation are crucial for advancing productivity growth” (GV-ED-3, p. 107). Investments in knowledge and innovation were framed as a key strategy for improving productivity: “Another key element of the government’s plan to improve productivity has been to invest in knowledge and innovation (GV-ED-3, p. 108). The policy discourse clearly highlighted the government’s vision of the promise of science to Canada’s social and economic future (STP-10, STP-17). The extent to which the promise of science became a dominant policy discourse is illustrated in the conclusions and recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry’s 19th Report: The Committee believes that science and technology is [sic] a key to our economic future and deserves to be raised to the status of a shared area. . .The Committee recommends: That the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development be given responsibility to coordinate and implement the federal Science & Technology Strategy across all departments and report annually to Parliament. (GV-ED-5 n.p.) The Committee further recommended: “that the House establish a committee to oversee science, technology and the innovation system in Canada”. The Committee concluded that “science, technology and innovation are the key to our future quality of life and prosperity and it is crucial to the successful implementation of the many government programs that Parliament maintain vigilant oversight” (GV-ED-5 n.p.). In his speech at the augural meeting of Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Council (CBAC), Kevin Lynch, Deputy Minister of Industry Canada told the committee that “S&T and innovation are at the core of the government’s game plan” (GV-ED-7, p. 3).

Several new elements entered the promise of science-based economic policy discourse during the third mandate: the role of the universities, commercialization of university research and the future of basic research. The role of universities in the promise of science became more clearly defined during the timeframe of the third mandate. In general, university research was envisioned to have multiple purposes: support and inform public policy, ensure a strong base of scientific knowledge in Canada, train and educate a highly qualified Canadian workforce,

136 increase wealth creation in Canada, contribute to economic growth, job creation and productivity and provide expertise (GV-ED-5, GV-ED-17, GV-ED-39, STP-9, STP-10). During the first mandate the role of universities in the national system of innovation, as characterized in the S&T Strategy (STP-1), was not well defined. However, by the third mandate, universities held a position of prominence in the NSI and in contributing to the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century. The 1999 Report on Federal Science and Technology explicitly recognized the role of universities in the innovation system: More recently, it has been recognized that the university role is much more complex. . .with the increasing importance of linkages among the players in the innovation system, support for university research now includes not only research grants, but also programs to encourage inter-university networking and university- industry linkages. (STP-9, p. 10) The report discursively linked the contribution of university research to the country’s standard living: “. . .university research is a key feature of a knowledge-based economy and society. It contributes significantly to improving Canadians’ standard of living” (STP-9, p. 22). Universities were discursively framed as primary contributors to the government’s socio-economic goals: “Canadian universities are well positioned to fuel Canada’s economic growth and social well- being” (STP-10, p. 34). Recognition of the role of universities in the promise of science policy discourse was evident in other key policy documents, such as the Speech from the Throne: To build on this agenda, the government will increase its support to the Granting Councils, enabling them to forge new partnerships with our universities to attract the best research minds in the world. . .foster greater international collaboration by Canadian universities and institutes and expand Canadian expertise. . .and find new markets for new products and services developed through research by universities and government research centres. (GV-ED-17 n.p.) The Prime Minister adopted similar discourse in his reply to the Speech from the Throne: Canada is more dependent on universities for our research and science innovation than the United States and other major competitors. The government of Canada must increase its support to research through the Granting Councils. Otherwise, we will lose the race to be a leader in the knowledge-based economy. (GV-ED-39 n.p.)

137

Canada’s success in the knowledge-based economy was dependent on policies that expedited the use of university research: “To succeed in this competitive environment, Canada must be at the forefront in developing the policies, programs and practices needed to swiftly act on the opportunities which emerge from university research” (STP-10, p. 10).

Commercialization, which was initially linked to the private sector in the 1996 S&T strategy (STP-1), became a critical success factor for realizing the impacts of university research in 1999: However, if policies are designed to make university research the source of new value-added activities in the Canadian economy, we believe that the potential benefit is much greater. Canadian universities are a very important element of our national capacity for innovation. . .a great potential to play a crucial role in the transformation of Canada’s economy into one that thrives on innovation. . . (STP- 10, p. 2) Commercialization was highlighted in the 1999 federal budget as one of the three elements comprising the government’s new framework for innovation (GV-ED-10). The 1999 budget included more than $1.9 billion over three years to support the creation, dissemination and commercialization of knowledge. The investment included additional funding for the Networks of Centres of Excellence to facilitate relationships between university researchers and the private sector as a means of accelerating commercialization (GV-ED-10). Although commercialization had been part of the promise of science policy discourse for several years, it was still considered to be a nascent activity within Canada’s universities, relative to the bigger players in commercialization, such as the United States. The Expert Panel on the Commercialization of University Research repeated this discourse several times in its report: “The commercialization of university research is an industry in its infancy in Canada” (STP-10, p. 20) and “We are a much smaller country and about a decade behind the United States in experimenting with commercialization undertakings” (p. 15) and “. . .Canadian universities only began experimenting with commercialization undertakings in the last decade, while Americans have been active for a considerably longer period of time” (p. 18). There were increasing concerns over the consequences of the slow progress on commercialization. The Expert Panel expressed concerns over the existing approach to commercialization: If Canada wishes to maximize the economic and social benefits from its investments in university research, it can no longer allow the status quo to continue. The present laissez-faire approach for commercializing the results of

138

university research is resulting in lost investment opportunities, jobs and social benefits for the country at large. If we are to scale up our activity to achieve our full potential, a bold new approach is required. (STP-10, p. 25) It also framed its concerns about the future, relative to the present: “To date, lost benefits are perhaps tolerable given the small base of total activity. However, as universities scale up their commercialization activities, lost benefits will become a more apparent drag on Canada’s productivity performance and Canadians’ standard of living” (STP-10, p. 20). The Expert Panel envisioned consequences of Canada’s failure to address the commercialization gap: “If Canada does not take steps to address these barriers, it will only achieve incremental gains over time, and cannot hope to reach our full potential” (p. 18).

Yet, there were high expectations for the future of the commercialization university research. The Standing Committee on Finance expressed its confidence in Canada’s future capacity for commercialization “. . .although Canada is still behind the United States, it is likely that Canada could considerably increase its ability to commercialize (GV-ED-5 n.p.). Despite its concerns, the Expert Panel also believed that Canada could improve its record of commercialization of university research: “Under the right conditions, however, we have every reason to believe that they can develop a world-class commercialization presence and generate very substantial incremental gains to Canada” (STP-10, p. 17). The Expert Panel felt that structural barriers were limiting the universities’ potential for commercialization: “A number of structural barriers need to be addressed to put Canadian universities on a higher growth path in generating commercial outcomes from investments in research” (STP-10, p. 18). The promise of science policy discourse on the commercialization of university research conveyed a sense of urgency: “We have no time to lose in establishing the conditions necessary to enable universities to perform to their full potential in commercializing the results of publicly funded research” (STP-10, p. 9). There were also concerns that increasing expectations for commercialization could have less than desirable long-term consequences to the future of basic research in Canada: the importance of basic research that is driven by the investigator’s curiosity to make advances to our fundamental knowledge, but which, at the time, has no ready commercial application. . .The ratio between basic and applied research in Canada could be changing because of a reduction in university core funding and

139

the pressures towards increased commercialization, which might narrow the research community focus more towards applied research. (GV-ED-5 n.p.) The tensions between basic and applied research continued during the third mandate, with strong advocacy for increased funding to basic research. For example, the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Industry discursively framed the underfunding of basis research as a ‘danger’: And we need to ensure that the innovation process is built on a strong and healthy foundation. While recognizing the efforts of governments, research councils, universities and business to improve the national innovation system and to re- invest in the research infrastructure. . .underfunding of basic research is a danger. There must be knowledge to transfer and discoveries to exploit if Canada is to reap full benefits of our enhanced capacity to innovate. Our ability to produce knowledge and feed the innovation cycle is the weakest—and at the same time, the most crucial link in the innovation process”. (GV-ED-5 n.p.) Scientific knowledge was framed as necessary precursor to applications and socio-economic benefits: Science, research and development are all about the search for knowledge—the discovery of new information and new understanding of how our world works. Knowledge is the key to improving the human condition and to improving our quality of life. Search for knowledge must be an ongoing process and a top priority of all sectors because of the potential applications (GV-ID-62, p. 3) Basic research was linked to the success of innovation: “to further develop and maintain a strong capacity for innovation by providing greater support for fundamental research” (STP-9, p. 83). This vision of basic research was also articulated by the Expert Panel on the Commercialization of University Research: It is understood that a great deal of university research is basic research whose goals have nothing to do with the development of marketable products. . .In the present context, it builds the foundation of important future innovations whose shape cannot even be foreseen today. (STP-10, p. 1) Similar discourse was adopted by the Standing Committee on Industry: “A vibrant and well- funded basic research community provides the cornerstone for the strong innovation system that is need for the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century” (GV-ED-5 n.p.).

140

In summary, the policy discourse of the third mandate was characterized by an intensely future- oriented promise of science discourse that emphasized the knowledge-based economy, the role of the universities in realizing the promise of science for Canada’s future, commercialization of university research and the future of basic research. Research funding was a key science policy issue that was subject to intense study and recommendations (GV-ED-5, GV-ED-10, STP-9, STP-10, STP-16, STP-17).

The Promise of Genomics Discourse

During the third mandate, the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines were being interpreted and translated in both the polis and the political arena (Braun, 1999; Schmidt, 2010; Stone, 2012). During the first mandate, the promise of genomics discourse was largely limited to the polis. The second mandate represented a transition of the promise of genomics discourse from the polis into the political arena with the first Memorandum to Cabinet. During the third mandate, the focus of deliberations shifted deeply into the political arena. The promise of genomics discourse over the first two mandates had focused on building a vision around the promise of basic and applied genomics research science, technology and innovation and what it meant for Canada’s socio-economic future. A promise of genomics discourse-coalition was established with a consensus that genomics should be a critical element of Canada’s science policy. The promise of genomics discourse of the third mandate positioned Genome Canada as the only policy option for achieving the promise of genomics. The objective of the third mandate was focused, primarily, on persuading government and, secondarily, other stakeholders that the promise of Genome Canada was the only policy option for realizing the promise of genomics for Canada: “The issue is integrating the country around the key driver of the next century; Genome Canada is the breakthrough mechanism” (TF- M-24 n.p.). This articulation—the promise of Genome Canada with the promise of genomics science and research for Canada’s socio-economic future had been loosely established during the first mandate with the GTF’s recommendation to the MRC for Genome Canada: The Task Force proposes the immediate establishment of a nation-wide initiative to be called Genome Canada. We envisage Genome Canada as a consortium. . .who share a common goal to create a multi-disciplinary research and funding program. The goal of Genome Canada is not only to facilitate research activities in genome mapping and sequencing, but also to develop a capacity to apply the

141

knowledge and technologies derived from these activities. We must ensure that the enormous benefits of genomics research are applied to health, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and environment, and contribute to the economy through all sectors of the biotechnology industry. (TF-R-2, p. iii-iv)

During the second mandate the articulation between the promise of genomics and the promise of Genome Canada was tightened, but the focus of the promise of genomics discourse remained on the promise of genomics basic and applied science, research and innovation. The promise of Genome Canada was still not sufficiently convincing. Task Force members recalled that they were very much focused on the science, for example: We have to remember that the first year17 was a strikeout, because we were too much focusing on science. We forgot to bring the government’s attention on the governance. It’s not about only the why. It’s also about the how. Why genomics? Fine. How will you do it?. . .I would say 45% is on the why, but once you convince the why, you have to answer how will you do it. (INT-3)

By the third mandate, the descriptive and normative accounts (Birch et al., 2014) of the promise of genomics discourse had been accepted by the government. The federal government was prepared to accept the argument that Canada had fallen behind other industrial countries in genomics research and that under funding of genomics posed a risk Canada’s socio-economic future. The government also agreed that the appropriate response was increased funding for genomics research. The government had not fully accepted the performative account of the discourse—that a nationally coordinated approached involving a new arms-length alternative governance model for the delivery of research—Genome Canada, as described in the first Memorandum to Cabinet, represented the best and only means by which the promise of genomics for Canada could be realized. As a causal story (Stone, 2012) the promise of genomics as envisioned through Genome Canada was incomplete. The promise of genomics discourse of the third mandate focused on completing the story. The promise of genomics discourse of the third mandate linked the promise of genomics tightly and exclusively to the promise of Genome Canada, as the only policy option that would achieve all that genomics promised for Canada.

17 The first year refers to the first Memorandum to Cabinet, the time period from July 1998 to February 1999, after the MRC approved the GTF’s recommendations in the Platform report (TF-R-2).

142

At a higher discursive level, the promise of genomics/Genome Canada was articulated with the broader promise of science-based economic policy discourse. The higher-level discursive articulation with broader policy discourse was crucial for the success of the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse because it was advocating for a significant transformation to Canada’s existing research institutional and policy framework (Birch et al., 2014). The promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse needed to convince government policy actors that the Genome Canada solution was the only way for Canada to realize the promise of genomics, such that the drastic institutional changes were necessary. A policy advisor recalled the importance of positioning Genome Canada, institutionally: How do you make this work according to—it is a very rule bound and codified world for good reason, but it means if you’re going to do something different, you have to make sure that it fits in a certain legal and social institutional framework. (INT-16) Not everyone was convinced that Genome Canada was an appropriate policy approach for funding genomics research. Alternative promissory discourses were promoted during the third mandate; although none were able to achieve the dominance and political momentum that the Genome Canada promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines had built over the two previous mandates. However, the concerns raised through the alternative discourses did have to be acknowledged and addressed by the dominant discourse.

Expectations of Genomics Story-lines

Unpacking the promise of genomics discourse and the related expectations of genomics story- lines of the third mandate is somewhat more complex than for the first two mandates for three reasons. First, in the third mandate, the GTF’s vision of a genome future for Canada is represented not only through the promise of basic and applied genomic science, research and innovation, but now also as the promise of Genome Canada as the means by which the promise of genomics would be operationalized and achieved. Second, the promise of genomics discourse- coalition expanded as more policy actors ‘stepped into’ the promise of genomics subject-position with their own interpretations and translations of the expectations of genomics story-lines. A diverse and heterogeneous group of policy actors had taken up the promise of genomics subject- position in the discourse-coalition based on different sets or combinations of story-lines, which were interpreted differently within the context of different interests of each policy actor, but

143 constituted a shared discourse (Hajer, 1995). Policy advisors and analysts from Industry Canada, the SDBAs and central agencies continued to debate and deliberate over the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse (e.g. GV-GB-9, GV-IC-14,GV-IC-15, GV-IC-20, GV-ID- 5, GV-ID-6, GV-ID-12, GV-ID-19, GV-ID-58, TF-ID-12) and policy actors outside the federal government (e.g. provinces) envisaged their interests and priorities through new ways of thinking about genomics research (e.g. GV-EC-36, GV-ID-24, GV-ID-25, TPD-33). The private sector adopted the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse largely in terms of the economic opportunities that would be generated by the investment in Genome Canada (e.g. GV-EC-8, GV- EC-35, TPD-4). There were now knowledge brokers actively briefing at the highest level of government. The knowledge brokers included lobbyists, who “had access and influence in the senior ranks of the federal government” (GV-ID-10, p. 7-8) and could translate the discourse “in terms understandable to decision makers” and promote the Genome Canada proposal as the only policy choice (Litfin, 1994, p. 81). Third, with the growing interest in the promise of genomics, largely due to the dramatic advances of the international efforts to sequence the human genome, politicians and the public were taking up subject-positions within the promise of genomics discourse, making sense of the promise of genomics discourse in different ways (GV-ID-10). Ms Nymark noted the significance of this trend in moving the promise of genomics onto the political agenda: At the same time, genomics and the Human Genome project began to increasingly occupy the media. Major journals, magazines, or newspapers focused on biotechnology continually. This enabled senior officials to learn about this “new” science and to become aware of its potential for health and humankind. It was finally “current” and “topical”, immeasurable factors in influencing priority setting. (GV-ID-10, p. 8)

While the promise of genomics discourse-coalition became more diverse, the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines became more focused. The discursive focusing was largely driven by the transition of the discourse deeper into the political arena with the need to convince the ultimate policy decision makers—Cabinet Ministers—that Genome Canada represented the only policy option for a national genomics strategy that would be effective in realizing the promise of genomics for Canada’s future (GV-ID-10). However, there was a hierarchy of government policy actors who needed to be convinced before Cabinet Ministers, each with their own interests and priorities related to the promise of

144 genomics/Genome Canada. At a dinner meeting with the Genome Canada Board of Directors in November 1999, Deputy Minister of Industry, Kevin Lynch described what was required to be successful: “The challenge for Genome Canada is to seek maximum buy-in for the budget by turning the concept into an irresistible opportunity for the government—and to make Genome Canada #1 on the list of ‘irresistible opportunities’” (TF-M-24, p. 1). While there was consensus among policy actors (funding agencies, universities, industry, federal SBDA, provinces) that genomics research was a Canadian science policy priority; there had to be consensus that Genome Canada was the best and only policy approach. Furthermore, “[a]ll councils and relevant departments must say Genome Canada is #1 on their list for incremental funding to have a realistic chance” (TF-M-24, p. 2). This meant that the federal science-based departments and agencies had to identify Genome Canada as their top budget priority for the 2000 budget and that the universities and private sector had to demonstrate their support for Genome Canada as the best model and organizational structure for managing and coordinating a national genomics research effort. Achieving such a wide spread consensus required a strategically focused argument that emphasized shared, mutual policy vision, priorities and interests.

Because the overarching goal of the third mandate was to convince influential senior bureaucrats (Deputy Ministers) and Cabinet Ministers that Genome Canada was the only policy option for realizing the promise of genomics, the expectations of genomics story-lines served two purposes. First, the expectations of genomics story-lines focused on economic expectations, articulating clear, tangible outcomes of investments in genome research and infrastructure. Second and more important, the organization expectations of genomics story-line, which had been a minor expectations of genomics story-line during the first two mandates, became a dominant expectations of genomics story-line during the third mandate, envisioning an organizational model for the delivery of genomics research that would operationalize the government’s vision of the promise of science in service to Canada with a rigorous governance and accountability framework. During the third mandate, the expectations of genomics story-lines converged around economic expectations of genomics science, research and innovation and organizational expectations of Genome Canada. A prominent discursive pattern during the third mandate included the articulation of the other expectations of genomics story-lines (science, technology, social, environment, health, culture, policy, training, status) with the economic or organization expectations of genomics story-lines, combined into a causal chain of multiple anticipated impacts. For example:

145

Research into functional genomics in plants, trees, and animals will lead to increased productivity of agricultural and forestry systems and will enhance the biosphere options for sequestration of carbon, helping Canada meet Kyoto commitments, while at the same time increasing efficiency of production of valuable renewable resources. (TF-R-11, p. 7)

The economic expectations of genomics story-line became the dominant element of the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse during the third mandate, overtaking the science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines, which had dominated the promise of genomics discourse over the first two mandates. A former Genome Canada Task Force member commented on the discursive shift from a focus on the expectations of genomics research and science to a focus on economic expectations during the third mandate: I’m not a policy guy, but I felt the word knowledge economy was there. The words of ‘we had to be at the forefront’, to be able to have products and services – it wasn’t just about publication. . . In the new economy, new biotechnology, we would try to get Canada in the top five. . . In the first year. . .science was the big thing. . .I think that that was a benefit of the second proposal. . .there was much more sell of how this would be important to the Canadian economy. (INT-1) The same impression was expressed by a policy actor directly involved in the process: So as it evolves to the broader concept and as you had a lot of time back and forth within. . .Industry Canada, it evolved internal and external pressure, which was the realization if you’re going to go for this kind of funding, there must be eventually an outcome, an output – economic development. . .I would say that vision was – there was a scientific vision and there was an economic development vision that was developed hand-in-hand. (INT-6)

The promise of Genome Canada became a prominent element of the economic expectations of genomics story-line: The promise of Genome Canada was that Canada would be able to develop a coherent national genomics strategy. . .Canada would be able to compete, in selected areas, with the best in the world. Commercial niches where Canada could excel would be identified. By its very creation in this unique model, it would be able to attract commercial investment. (GV-ID-10, p. 4)

146

The promise of Genome Canada was discursively linked to policy priorities, such as wealth creation, new business development and investment: “Genome Canada is expected to produce measurable wealth generation in Canada. New technologies, products and services would be created and developed, leading to new businesses and investment opportunities in Canada” (GV- IC-16 n.p.). Genome Canada was the means by which the economic promise of genomics would be operationalized and realized: “Our future economic growth depends on being internationally competitive and exploiting new opportunities for industrial development. . .Genome Canada is the crucial underpinning for much of this effort” (TF-ID-10, p. 13). The economic expectations of genomics story-line positioned Genome Canada as the breakthrough mechanism that would put into place the necessary conditions for Canada to maximize the economic benefits of genomics research and innovation (GV-ID-1). The promise of Genome Canada was discursively envisioned as a solution to productivity (GV-ID-11). Genome Canada would “support key genetic work in most sectors of the Canadian economy” (TF-ID-19 n.p.), leading to enhanced productivity and innovation in the agriculture, aquaculture, mining, forestry, energy and environment sectors. Genome Canada would “be an active incubator for new talent, new discoveries, new technologies and new business” (TF-R-11, p. 17).

In securing the support necessary to convince the political decision-makers, the promise of Genome Canada was directly linked to the anticipated return on investment introduced during the second mandate (TF-R-10, GV-GB-34). The anticipated return on investment presented to the DM Biotechnology Coordinating Committee in November 1998 did not specifically attribute the returns to an investment in Genome Canada, but to genomics research (GV-GB-34, p. 8). The Genome Canada Business Plan, released in November 1999, attributed the same return on investment estimate explicitly to Genome Canada (TF-R-11): “The anticipated return on investment in Genome Canada. . .has been estimated as follows: $1 billion CDN new investment in Canadian genomics companies. . .[two] new multinational corporate investments in Canada worth $100 to $300M. . .genomics-related product sales of $500M” (TF-R-11, p. 15).

The economic expectations of genomics story-line did include elements focused on the promise of genomics. As in the previous two mandates, there was a strong economic expectation linking the promise of genomics research to the future of Canada’s biotechnology industry. With the government’s vision of biotechnology as the driver of the Canadian economy of the future, genomics research was envisioned as the essential source of growth for the biotechnology

147 industry (GV-EC-41, GV-ID-11, GV-ID-62, TF-ID-4, TF-ID-10, TF-ID-11, TF-ID-19, TF-R-11, TF-R-17, TPD-4). An internal communication from Ms Nymark to a colleague in the Privy Council Office, who had expressed skepticism toward the Genome Canada proposal, emphasized the economic link between genomics and biotechnology: Biotechnology is the next evolutionary wave in the global economy. . .Genomics is at the core of advancements in modern biotechnology. . .The biotechnology sector can provide maximum impact on output and employment: the rapidly growing world demand for biotechnology products and services is expected to grow from $25 billion today to $50 billion by 2005. Canada’s share could increase to 15% of the world market in the next five years, from less than 5% at present. . .Biotechnology, driven by advances in genomics, will supplant information technology as the main driver of scientific and economic growth in the 21st century, knowledge-based economy. It is vital that Canada plays a lead role in the coming ‘genomics revolution’. (GV-IC-16 n.p.) Genomics research would provide the essential science-base for the development of biotechnological applications (TPD-4). Industry stakeholders were equally convinced that genomics was the future of the biotechnology industry: There can be no question, if Canada aspires to a leadership position in the field of biotechnology, Canada must have a critical mass of world class expertise in the field of genomics. Simply stated, genomics is the engine that will drive the biotech industry in this new millennium. Any country that lacks genomics expertise at the academic and industrial levels will remain a second or third tier player in the biotech field. Conversely, centers of genomics excellence will be regarded as favored locations for significant industrial investment and growth. (GV-EC-8 n.p.). The economic expectations of genomics story-line constructed a compelling future for Canada by tying biotechnology to the economy and genomics research to biotechnology: “Our future economic growth depends on being internationally competitive and exploiting new opportunities for industrial development – No field today is more promising or more competitive than biotechnology – Genomics is at the heart of biotech” (TF-ID-10 slide13). Genomics, as the science of the new millennium, would catalyze the biotechnology revolution:

148

Genomic science is widely understood to be the foundation of biotechnology, and the next large wave of technological innovation and economic growth on a massive international scale. . . There are immediate implications for industry in most economic sectors and in all countries. Canada’s ability to compete in international trade depends on our nation’s participation in this revolution. (TF- ID-7, p. 2-3)

The organization expectations of genomics story-line emerged as a key element of the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse during the third mandate. It was multi-dimensional, making a compelling argument for Genome Canada as the only policy option for realizing the promise of genomics. The argument underlying the organization expectations of genomics story-line was that Canada was falling behind the G7 and the “[o]nly strategy possible now is one of concentration (on topics critical to Canada) and integration (of best from industry, government, universities, hospitals) [that] brings the best minds together. . .to ensure Canada is a top tier player, [makes] [b]ig investment in R&D infrastructure (beyond CFI alone) [and involves] cross- sectoral policy coordination (S& T, trade. industry, law . . .)” (TF-ID-11 slide 3). The organization expectations of genomics story-line completed the causal story (Stone, 2012) with a performative aspect (Birch et al., 2014) that called for a new organizational entity to build, coordinate and manage Canada’s genomic research on the basis of several expectations. First, that new organizational structures, Genome Canada and genome centres, were needed in order to respond effectively to the challenges of the new science of genomics (TF-ID-7). Both Genome Canada and the genome centres, as new organizational structures, were necessary to establish a genome science infrastructure of sufficient scale to operate effectively and efficiently (TF-ID-7). The argument of the organization expectations of genomics story-line positioned the existing funding mechanisms as inadequate due to the “fragmentary and non-integrated funding” provided “for research programs, personnel and infrastructure” (TF-ID-7, p. 3). Second, Genome Canada would support, advise, complement and enhance the work of existing funding agencies and federal science-based departments and agencies (TF-R-11). “Genome Canada is needed to provide a broad and coherent strategy. . .to provide technical infrastructure and research leadership, and to complement the work of existing federal departments and agencies” (TF-R-11, p. 10). Finally, a new organizational entity—Genome Canada would ensure the proper governance and accountability to minimize risks and protect the public interest (GV-ID-10). The organization expectations of genomics story-line responded to the feedback about the weak

149 governance model outlined for Genome Canada in the previous Memorandum to Cabinet: “I was told by David Dodge and Kevin Lynch. . .we like it…but lack of governance” (INT-3).

The organization expectations of genomics story-line highlighted the need for a coordinated, integrated, national genomics strategy. Genome Canada was envisioned as the bridge between existing, but disconnected funding agencies, representing a coordinating mechanism that was vital to a coherent national genomics strategy: “Without such a national coordinating mechanism, there can be no coherent national strategy” (TF-ID-10 slide 12). It was argued that: “By acting as a coordinating hub for genomics research, Genome Canada will be able to operate more effectively in an internationally competitive field. . .and to move Canada forward in an area which is moving at an extremely rapid pace” (GV-ID-9, p. 1). The promise of Genome Canada focused on building a genome science infrastructure of sufficient scale that was unlikely to be achieved “within the confines of present funding mechanisms” (TF-ID-7, p. 3). For the promise of genomics to be realized a new/different organizational structure was required. The promise of genomics could not be achieved without a “new and enterprising approach to the way business is undertaken for Genome Canada. . .The new approach reflected in the creation of Genome Canada and the Genome Centres is inherently horizontal” (TF-ID-7, p. 3). The promise of genomics would be realized through a “new institution to bring stakeholders together, produce and update strategy, organize infrastructure, provide critical support to applied genomic research—Genome Canada” (TF-ID-11 slide 3). The proposed organizational model for Genome Canada was envisaged as “inclusive of Canadian efforts across the institutional spectrum – i.e. universities, industry, medial [sic] research centres and government laboratories” (TF-ID-7, p. 5) and would “serve as the institutional base for the active management of the nation’s genomic research effort” (TF-ID-7, p. 6).

The genome centres were a key element of the organization expectations of genomics story-line. The genome centres were expected to “offer efficiencies in scale and access to core technologies. . .that would enhance all programmatic funding related to genomics. . .integrate critical genome research platforms. . .support key genomic work in most sector of the Canadian economy. . .act as innovation incubators” (TF-ID-19 n.p.). The genome centres were envisioned as “large-scale

150 combinations of the seven genome research platforms18 organized to provide efficient access to those technology and knowledge bases for users and partners from any sector or discipline” (TF- ID-4, p. 3), including genomics researchers from universities, hospitals, federal labs and industries. The research platforms were essential to internationally competitive genomics research, but the infrastructure was expensive and the scale beyond the scope and mandates of the existing funding agencies: These funding mechanisms are not appropriate, however, to fund Genome Centres. The funding scale is too large, the content/disciple bases too diverse, the personnel specialized and the applications too multi-sectoral to fit well within programmatic funding mechanisms. The transaction costs are too high to amass sufficient funding from the separate sources, each operating on separate timelines and requiring separate coordination mechanisms. (TF-ID-4, p. 4)19 The seven research platforms supported multiple disciplines and sectors; having the platforms available at strategically located centres across the country would provide researchers with access to specialized equipment and personnel, which would result in multiple impacts: “Effective access to all the necessary platforms in geographic proximity gains efficiency and creates the best potential for unanticipated crossovers and spin-offs” (TF-ID-4, p. 8). It was argued that in addition to the research platforms, the centres would offer critical training opportunities for scientists and technologists and play a unique role in providing jobs and career paths for Canadian trained HQP: “The Genome Centres can be part of an integrated career development program” (TF-ID-4, p. 10), offering solutions to the challenges faced by early career scientists. The guaranteed access envisaged through the genome centres would “reverse the ‘brain drain’ of talented scientists, technologists and business innovators having to leave Canada to pursue their careers and their business goals” (TF-IC-19 n.p.).

Another aspect of the organization expectations of genomics story-line positioning Genome Canada discursively as the only policy option for a Canadian genomics research strategy was the

18 The seven research platforms included genome mapping and sequencing, functional genomics, genotyping, proteomics, bioinformatics, technology development and genomics ethics, law and society (GE3LS) issues

19 This argument would prove instrumental in resolving a debate between Genome Canada and the Finance Department over the eligibility of infrastructure expenses in the Funding Agreement in March 2000 (GV-ID -10).

151 essential role it would be play in supporting and complementing the work of the granting agencies and science-based departments and agencies. Genome Canada was envisioned as filling major gaps in our approach to genomics: - providing strategic focus and coordination to the national effort – supporting large scale research projects that are beyond the capacity of existing partners. It will strengthen the work of existing agencies and programs: - providing essential support for the investment of the granting councils. . .reinforcing the work of federal and provincial research agencies. (TF-ID-10, p. 12) Discursively positioning Genome Canada in this advisory and support role was partly motivated by the need to address concerns over perceptions that Genome Canada would be another funding agency: . . .Genome Canada should not duplicate the role of the research councils or the Networks of Centres of Excellence in relation to the funding of genomics research projects. . .Genome Canada should be an active participant with the research councils in determining national research priorities for genomics, in providing a strategic assessment of where the field is headed and in providing advice on what kinds of projects deserve support from the councils. (TF-ID-7, p. 7)

The Genome Canada Task Force (GCTF) was emphatic in its assurances that the promise of Genome Canada did not include a funding mandate that duplicated the mandates of the granting councils, NCE or CFI. The funding envisioned for Genome Canada was for research programs in the genome centres “in the range of $1 - $1.5m/year over five years, which would be programs that fall between the size supported by the funding councils and those operated by the NCE’s” (TF-ID-7, p. 5). Genome Canada would not have an independent granting role, but it would “have the mandate to push the development of the platform technologies. . .both in terms of acquiring the world’s best equipment and in terms of inventing improvements” (TF-ID-7, p. 6). The funding would go to the genome centres and would “not serve as a new source of funds for peer-reviewed research projects” (TF-ID-7, p. 9), which was the mandate of the research councils, CFI and NCEs. In assuaging the apprehension over Genome Canada’s role in funding research, the need for cooperation between Genome Canada and other federal players was emphasized as critical to the success of the strategy being proposed. For example, in its response to the CFI consultation on its proposed Strategy for Genomics, Genome Canada discursively framed its vision:

152

Genome Canada is not to be another granting agency. Rather it will be a nexus of expertise, capacity and outreach that will support the best scientific and GELS research that will enable Canadians to reap the economic and social benefits of the genomics revolution. Genome Canada provides a mechanism to distill expert advice, and to develop and put into operation an integrated national strategy for research in genomics and its applications. Active cooperation between Genome Canada and other federal players will be a key to the success of this strategy. To this end, it is intended that Genome Canada will serve as a primary source of advice to the granting councils, and to other federal funding organizations such as the CFI, on priorities and objectives in genomics research. (TF-EC-5, p.7) The organization expectations of genomics story-line was explicit in envisioning the benefits of Genome Canada NOT being a funding agency: “Since Genome Canada is not a granting council, Universities can work together instead of having to compete with each other. Working together for access to genome centre facilities will increase the ability to recruit for new chairs” (TF-M- 24, p. 2). The relationship between Genome Canada and the granting agencies was envisaged as a collaborative partnership in “determining national research priorities for genomics” (TF-ID-7, p. 9), where Genome Canada would provide advice on the direction of genomics research and “on what kinds of projects deserve support from the councils” (TF-ID-7, p. 9).

A weak governance model was widely believed to be the main reason why the Genome Canada proposal had not been funded in the 1999 budget. A Genome Canada Task Force member recalled a phone call from Kevin Lynch, Deputy Minister, Industry Canada, shortly after the 1999 federal budget: “Kevin then said that we should meet. I said sure, fine, I'll go to Ottawa. I went to Ottawa and he said you know what . . . what went wrong with you guys? You didn't describe Genome Canada's governance” (INT-3). A bureaucrat involved in drafting the first Memorandum to Cabinet offered this explanation for why the Genome Canada portion of the MC was not funded: We knew the Genome Canada thing wasn’t sufficiently ‘well cooked’, if I can use that word, to be as persuasive number one and number two it was a big ask. . .So, when you combine the fact that you didn’t have a well enough developed proposal with a really solid governance structure and a big ask, at that point in time you know, we weren’t confident that that would go through. (INT-15)

153

A policy advisor assisting the Genome Task Force in developing the proposal confirmed the ‘weak governance theory’: “I know there was an issue with governance—our governance wasn’t overly mature and didn’t quite correspond to what they wanted to hear” (INT-6). According to Ms Nymark, the MC only had “lukewarm support from Ministers”; it “was no one’s top priority” and “there were clearly concerns around the lack of clarity on the governance structure for Genome Canada” (GV-ID-10, p. 7).

In response to this feedback, governance and accountability became key elements of the organization expectations of genomics story-line and prominent aspects of the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse. A member of the Genome Canada Task Force recalled the discursive shift, again away from the emphasis on science to governance: “We have to remember the first year was a strike out, because we were too much focusing on science. We forgot to bring the government’s attention on the governance. . .It’s not about only the why. It’s also about the how. . .Why genomics? Fine. How will you do it?. . .but once you convince the why, you have to answer how you will do it” (INT-3). The Genome Canada Task Force worked with a consultant, a former federal government bureaucrat with expertise in governance, to develop a strong and compelling governance framework that reassured politicians, but more importantly bureaucrats in the central agencies (Treasury Board, Privy Council Office and Department of Finance), that Genome Canada, as an alternative governance model for delivery of research, would operate under rigorous governance and accountability standards that protected the public interest (GV-ID-10). The governance and accountability elements of the organization expectations story-line focused on describing, sometimes in great detail, the measures, policies, protocols and committees that would be established for both Genome Canada and the genome centres, demonstrating that the public interest would be adequately protected and that there would be sufficient oversight to mitigate risks (GV-ID-61, TF-ID-5, TF-ID-7, TF-ID-8, TF-R- 11).

Considered in its entirety, the organization expectations of genomics story-line of the third mandate can be interpreted as a compelling argument for Genome Canada as the only policy option for a Canadian genome research strategy. Each of the dimensions and elements of the organization expectations of genomics story-line envisaged Genome Canada as a solution to the risks Canada faced in lacking a nationally coordinated genome strategy and the only means by which Canada could realize the promise of genomics. As Litfin (1994) argues, discourses

154 determine what can and cannot be thought and therefore define the range of policy options, often acting as precursors to policy outcomes. Alternative arguments were made for Genome Canada to take on a direct funding role or at least to balance funding between the genome centres and investigator-initiated proposals (GV-EC-7, GV-EC-32). Academic researchers and the universities, while not contesting the promise of genomics, challenged the genome centre concept and the non-funding agency role envisioned for Genome Canada. In letters to several federal Ministers, Dr. James Friesen articulated these concerns: . . .the disbursement of. . .funds will be most effective if it includes support of a mixture of individual projects and centralized facilities. Each of these categories serves a valuable and different function in genome studies. To restrict funding only to centralized facilities will severely limit the impact of genome studies on Canadian science and technology. (GV-EC-7) The concept of providing access to technology platforms through the genome centres was contested: “Centres dealing with most of these core activities are completely inappropriate” (GV- EC-32). As alternative vision, it was argued that a granting agency with a mission “defined as funding genome-wide structural and functional genomic studies. . .awarded on the basis of investigator-initiated proposals”, Genome Canada “would be more flexible and would better respond to changing circumstances driven by discoveries” (GV-EC-32, p. 2). The Genome Canada Task Force responded to this counter discourse by meeting with a group of Vice Presidents Academic to discuss their concerns (TF-M-24). However, the dominant promise of genomics discourse that had gained momentum over the two previous mandates did not permit the idea of another funding agency as a policy approach to a nationally coordinated genome research program and therefore it did not become an option for policy makers to consider.

The science, technology, policy and status expectations of genomics story-lines were salient in the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse of the third mandate. These expectations of genomics story-lines also took on a supportive role, often reinforcing the causal arguments for the economic and organization expectations of genomics story-lines. The remaining expectations of genomics story-lines (health, social, culture, environment, and training) were minor elements of the promise of genomics discourse that did not significantly change in content from the two previous mandates or contribute substantively to the ideational or material effects of the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse during the third mandate.

155

The science expectations of genomics story-line of the third mandate focused less on specific scientific advances and more on the anticipated applications, outcomes, and impacts of anticipated advances in genomics science: “Genome research is needed to deal with key human health, agricultural and crop development issues and to identify genome science-based solutions for forest resources management, sustainable development and environmental technologies” (GV-ID-19 n., p.). The discursive tension between basic and applied research that was apparent in the promise of genomics discourse of the first two mandates was not as intense in the third mandate. Basic and applied genomics research were discursively positioned in the continuum of research and innovation: “Once achieved, critical mass in genome-related capabilities will produce spin-off benefits in basic science and in application/development. Both basic science and applied spin-offs will be of interest to Canadian venture capital companies, as well as MNEs20” (TF-ID-4, p. 9). As such, this element of science expectations of genomics story-line offered a balanced approach to basic and applied research that could alleviate the tension that existed between basic and applied research in the broader policy discourse.

With the progress of the international research efforts in mapping and sequencing the human and model organism genomes, functional genomics was identified as Canada’s competitive niche for investment (TF-R-6): The race to sequence the human genome is over. The human genome sequence will be entirely described by this time next year. However, the work on understanding the function of those genes and gene segments is just beginning. Canada has a structural advantage in this next phase of genome science. (TF-R-5 n.p.) The GCTF believed there would be significant impacts from this strategic approach to genomics research: with respect to the strategic direction of Canadian research in genomics, it was agreed there is no point in trying to compete with scientists and research institutions in other countries in the basic mapping and sequencing of the human genome, which will be completed in the near future. These established genome programs have numbers and resources we cannot match, and a head start we

20 MNE – Multi-national enterprise

156

cannot overcome. . .the most productive direction for Canadian genomic science lies in functional and applied genomics – i.e., in the application of genomic knowledge and technologies to the solution of research problems in areas ranging from cancer research to the development of new industrial and food products. This more targeted approach will utilize Canada’s unique strengths within the international evolution of genome science. It will also allow Canada to benefit from the collaborative model proposed below for the Genome Centres. (TF-ID-5, p. 3) Functional and applied genomics were emphasized as priorities in the genomics research programs developed by the science-based departments that had received the $55m in the 1999 federal budget (GV-ID-4, GV-ID-5, GV-ID-6, GV-ID-7, GV-ID-19, GV-ID-58). For example, the CFS saw the promise in pursuing applied forestry genomics research for both economic and environmental impacts: The CFS will continue to develop the knowledge base essential to meet Canada's present and future needs for innovation, focusing on species and traits that are of economic importance. We need to better understand the gene structure and function of trees and their pathogens. We also need to apply this knowledge to the enhancement of tree regeneration and protection systems. (GV-ID-6, p. 2)

The science expectations of genomics story-line discursively reinforced the economic expectations story-line. In supporting the economic expectations story-line, the science expectations of genomics story-line linked the promise of basic and applied genomic science, research and innovation directly to economic growth, enhanced national productivity, quality of life and the well-being of Canadians through technological innovation in biotechnology, articulating with the promise of science-based economic policy discourse. The promise of genomics would be realized only if Canada participated in the genomics revolution – “in the scientific breakthroughs in biotechnology for the next millennium” (TF-ID-7, p. 3). The promise of genomics in realizing “the immediate implication for industry in most economic sectors” (TF- ID-7, p. 3), ranging from “new avenues for treating disease, improving crops, animal, aquaculture and forest yields, to concentrating ores and sequestering and remediating waste and pollution” (TF-ID-7, p. 2) lay in a coherent, nationally coordinated, targeted research strategy focused on functional and applied genomics “utiliz[ing] Canada’s unique strengths within the international evolution of genome science” (TF-ID-7, p. 5).

157

The technology expectations of genomics story-line continued to envision the access to and the development of technology, as in the previous mandates. A new element of the technology expectations of genomics story-line in the third mandate was the enabling role that the genome centres, as crucial organizational entities, would play in both technological expectations. Access to leading-edge technology platforms so critical to building internationally competitive research capacity (GV-ID-1, TF-ID-16) and maximizing return on investments in genomics research was envisioned through the genome centres: “The critical mass and cross-disciplinarity available in Centres will stimulate the development of new technologies in genomics science” (TF-R-11, p. 5). The promise of the genome centres for technology development was an element of the technology expectations of genomics story-line that was adopted by the private sector in support of the Genome Canada proposal. In a letter soliciting the support of the Ministry of Industry for Genome Canada, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a Canadian genomics company highlighted the importance of access to technology that would be made possible through the genome centres: The availability of genome centres will greatly facilitate access to existing technology and allow the development of. . .technology that efficiently addresses our growing needs at reasonable cost. Such access will ensure that we in Canada remain competitive with genomics-based companies in Europe, Japan and the USA. . . (GV-EC-38, p. 1) The importance of access to technology platforms was linked to intellectual property and Canada’s ability to recoup its investment in technology development: Resulting commercial applications are therefore developed outside Canada, depriving Canada of the fruits of Canadian investment. . .are then forced to pay license fees to gain access to intellectual property supported in development inside Canada but finalized outside Canada due to lack of full spectrum support. (TF-R-11, p. 8) Another CEO envisioned the advantages Genome Canada would afford organizations in developing Canadian intellectual property in a letter to the Prime Minister: The greatest social and economic rewards from the next phase of genomics will go to those countries and organizations that can more rapidly create, protect and develop the intellectual property for. . .application of genomics. . .Access to state of the art industrial genomics capabilities, as proposed under the Genome Canada

158

program, would permit Canadian research groups to pursue their genomics discovery research to the point of creating and protecting valuable intellectual property, rather than selling off future rights to foreign organizations, private or public, in return for access to such capabilities outside of Canada’s borders. (GV- EC-37, p. 1)

The policy expectations of genomics story-line was built around four key ideas. The primary policy expectation envisioned Genome Canada’s role in developing and implementing a coherent national genomics strategy that would put Canada back on track to capture all that genomics science and technology promised. The promise of genomics science, research and innovation for Canada’s socio-economic future was too important to be ignored and would only be realized through a substantive transformation of the existing research policy framework that established Genome Canada. Secondary policy expectations included (1) the benefits that both genomics and Genome Canada would bring to the CBS, (2) the improvements to Canada’s regulatory system that would be realized through genomics research and (3) the importance of the role of GE3LS research. The promise of Genome Canada was envisioned in its potential for achieving policy priorities that existing funding mechanism could not: “. . .an innovative approach to create a national institution. . .designed to foster partnerships. . .more likely to attract provincial and private sector support than a ‘federal’ agency. . .crucial to delivering genome science in Canada; enlarging other mechanisms (councils, CFI) is not sufficient” (TF-M-24 n.p.).

The primary dimension of the policy expectations of genomics story-line was the overwhelming contribution Genome Canada would make in taking the lead in developing and coordinating a coherent, national genomics strategy. The policy expectations of genomics story-line articulated with the organization expectations of genomics story-line in a compelling argument for Genome Canada. Genome Canada was envisioned as a “new institution to bring stakeholders together, produce and update strategy, organize infrastructure, provide critical support to applied genomic research” (TF-ID-11 slide 3). The causal story outlining the policy expectations of genomics story-line argued that Canada had fallen behind the rest of the G7 and now must make strategic decisions about where the best opportunities were for making up the lost ground. Canada was left with only one policy option: concentrating on areas of genomics research that were critical to the country and integrating the best resources to maximize outcomes. Canada’s best minds needed to come together on strategy to ensure that Canada was a top tier player, to make critical

159 choices for focused substantial investments in R&D infrastructure and to inform the decisions necessary for cross-sectoral policy coordination that was essential for the success of the strategy (TF-ID-11, slide 3).

Through Genome Canada, the issue of coordination and management of the national genome research effort would be addressed; Canada would be able to “compete in selected areas with the best in the world, able to identify and exploit commercial niches and to attract commercial investment” (TF-R-10 slide 20); and bring together industry, government, universities and research hospitals (TF-R-10 slide 7). Without Genome Canada, a dire future was envisioned that contrasted with the government’s vision of the promise of science in service to Canada. Canada would not “be a significant player in this crucial new technology”, it risked “becoming prisoners of U.S. multinationals”, losing many of its best researchers to U.S. universities, “research hospitals would contribute less to the fight against genetic disease, [our] natural resource industries would become dependent on outside research and start up enterprises [would] no longer contribute innovation to the economy” (TF-ID-11 slide 4). The policy benefits of Genome Canada would be demonstrated “in terms of new science, technology development, new applications, new jobs and businesses and better public understanding” (TF-ID-11 slide 5).

Genomics research was envisioned as crucial to supporting the challenges facing the regulatory system: “genomics capacity will assist in all areas requiring regulation, surveillance and monitoring. This will include regulation in biotechnology and other industries, disease surveillance and monitoring performance, and effects of the full range of health, industrial and social interventions” (TF-R-11, p. 7). The genome centres were expected to provide the necessary infrastructure to “service the mandate of federal government stewardship (for example, the scientific underpinning of regulatory programs)” (TF-R-6, p. 4). It was argued that the clusters anticipated through the genome centres would contribute to regulatory capacity (TF-ID- 4).

During the third mandate, GE3LS became a prominent dimension of the policy expectations of genomics story-line, envisioned “as a necessary aspect of an overall national genome strategy” (GV-ID-59, p. 1) and critical to securing buy-in from Cabinet Ministers: “It is becoming apparent that no argument in favour of Genome Canada can be successful unless it carries first and foremost an assurance that the ethical, legal and societal concerns surrounding the issues of genomics research will be adequately addressed” (TF-R-14, slide 15). The GE3LS dimension of

160 the policy expectations of genomics story-line emphasized two issues. The first was the role of scholarly, peer-reviewed research on the ethical, economic, environmental, legal and social issues, which was envisioned as critical for the development of regulatory, legal and ethical frameworks for genome research and public policy: Because of the power of genomics technology and the rapid speed with which it advances, society is presented with entirely new and difficult ethical, environmental, legal and social issues. Researchers, policy makers in industry and government, and the public at large, need advice, education and balanced information on the implications and options for the full range of genomics applications. (TF-R-11, p. 34) GE3LS research was envisioned as a field of scholarly leadership for Canada: In Canada and elsewhere, the development of ethics, norms and resulting regulation for the application of genetic discoveries lags significantly behind the growth in knowledge and capabilities. Canada can provide world leadership in the study of legal, ethical, socio-cultural and environmental issues in genomics leading to the development of cautionary measures and policies to both precede and parallel advances in genome technology. (TR-R-5 n.p.)

The second issue emphasized by the GE3LS dimension of the policy expectations of genomics story-line was the importance of GE3LS for ensuring “that Canadians have confidence in their investment in genomics, and so that its commercial success can be maximized” (TF-ID-7, p. 4). The Genome Canada Business Plan highlighted the importance of communications and public outreach: Management of the public interest in genomics requires close coupling with research into the ethical, environmental, legal and societal issues surrounding genomics research, development and application. . .In addition to the scholarly work in these areas, the issues must be communicated to the public. This will require a vigorous outreach program through the public media, educational systems and other mechanisms to involve Canadians in learning more about and appreciating the complexity of their choices in these areas. . .The objective of the communications and outreach policy is to engage Canadians in education and deliberation on the relative risks and rewards involved in the complex and new capabilities that genome science would bring to society. (TF-R-11, p. 17-18)

161

The GE3LS discourse became a basis for advocating for Genome Canada. In a presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Dr. Tsui emphasized the promise of GE3LS research over the promise of genomics technology: Although there are a number of technology platforms. . .they are too technical, and I don’t want to get into that. But there is one thing that perhaps may touch your heart. For genome science we realize there is not just technology development, but also, we need some controls and regulations. Therefore, it is very much into these so-called ethical, social, cultural and environmental issues. So, we have this term GELS. . .In our planning there is no doubt that in Genome Canada we have a major commitment to provide a focus and a mechanism to study the social, legal, ethical and environmental impacts of genome research in this country. (GV-ID-11 n.p.) GE3LS research and communications was one of the three objects written into Genome Canada’s articles of incorporation (TF-ID-25).

Ideational and Material Effects of the Promise of Genomics Discourse

The GTF was bitterly disappointed by the outcome of the 1999 federal budget. They felt betrayed by the science-based departments and agencies. Three members of the Genome Task Force independently recalled similar reactions to the budget during their interviews: We waited then for the budget, but the dollars that came out of that first budget was $55 million all went to the national labs and we felt betrayed. (INT-1)

And then I’m reading on, really great genomics program and you keep reading and then what? It’s the internal government program—my jaw dropped. . .Although the government scientists were in and they had played a role, the real heavy lifting had been done by the academics. It wasn’t that it shouldn’t be anything for the government scientist, but that there ONLY should be something for the government scientist, it almost killed the enterprise. We almost lost it there. We came out, all these people had worked hours and hours and end up at countless meetings on the task force were almost insulted by it. . .not only they didn’t get funding, but it’s almost like adding insult to injury. (INT-6)

162

So here at the budget, you sit down in front of a TV. I'm in Montreal, the taskforce is all across Canada, and we listen to the finance minister, and not a single word on Genome Canada, but $55 million on biotechnology. . . (INT-3) Christine Nymark confirmed the reaction of the GTF to the 1999 budget: “The academic committee which had worked for over a year on Genome Canada felt betrayed by the bureaucrats who had added two other elements to the proposal. In their view, they had feathered their own nests at the expense of Genome Canada” (GV-ID-10, p. 7).

The federal government saw things somewhat differently. A member of the GTF recalled the government’s interpretation of the funding announced in the budget: “. . .Three weeks passed. Here's the call from Kevin Lynch, Deputy Minister of Industry Canada: Hey, we haven't heard from you. Well, yes, you haven't heard from me, I haven't heard from you either. Yeah, but we put $55 million in biotechnology research, isn't that what you were asking for?” (INT-3). In an interview with Research Money after the federal budget was delivered, Roy Atkinson explained his interpretation of the government’s decision to not fund Genome Canada: “the GC concept still has value and expresses hope that its backers "continue to believe in the vision". We have to make sure genome research happens in Canada (and) this funding is a good first step to get things started. . .The federal sense is that these large projects like Genome Canada often need more than one try” (MD-63). The federal government policy actors saw the $55m for biotechnology (genome) research as a ‘down payment’ to future investments in genome research. Ms Nymark highlighted the “pivotal decision” to give Genome Canada a $500k grant after the disappointing budget result, “to regain their faith that officials were with them on the need for a government investment in genome science” (GV-ID-10, p. 7). She explained that the grant “signaled that the government was serious about funding genome research” (p. 7). A policy advisor directly involved in drafting the first MC confirmed the government’s emerging interests in the promise of genomics: “But what they did say was don’t give up and come back. And that wasn’t formal, that wasn’t Ministers in Cabinet saying that directly but that was you know the people who had been in the Cabinet room saying look there was quite an interest in this and Deputy’s as well understood that” (INT-15).

There were strong indications that the promise of genomics discourse was beginning to have persuasive power in the political arena. Convincing the GTF that government decision-makers

163 were beginning to ‘see’ the promise of genomics was not easy. According to Ms Nymark: “The challenge then became convincing Genome Canada to stay in the game, to regain their faith that officials were with them on the need for a government investment in genome science” (GV-ID- 10, p. 7). By encouraging the GTF to re-group for a second attempt, the federal government showed signs that its interests and priorities were beginning to be re-conceptualized and re- evaluated through the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story- lines. It took some convincing, but the GTF decided to continue working toward its vision of a genome future for Canada. A former MRC representative recalled the difficulties of convincing the GTF to resume their efforts: And I remember – we almost couldn’t get them calm and back to the next meeting to analyze it and figure out what should be done. For about two weeks there, everything wavered, I didn’t think we would be able to get another meeting. We survived. That was probably the place where we came closest to not getting there. . .People who worked so hard were quite discouraged but got back on the horse. . . (INT-6)

The budget surplus is a salient contextual (political) factor that contributed to the power of the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines (Epstein, 2008; Litfin, 1994; Stone, 2012). It was the first time in more than 25 years that there had been a federal budget surplus (GV-ED-30). According to a Deputy Minister, one quite knew what to do with it: “None of us had ever had a surplus, therefore we had never been confronted with that concept where we have money where you could spend it. . .” (INT-17). The budget surplus made it possible for the government to think about new ways of investing in science and research (INT- 15). For example, with the Canada Foundation for Innovation policy makers had demonstrated an openness to novel policy options for using the unprecedented budget surplus (GV-ED-30). The unprecedented endowment of $800m to establish the CFI in the 1997 budget (GV-ED-30) indicates that the government was prepared to use the budget surplus for alternative approaches to science and research funding, that it was not constrained by institutional or policy frameworks. The lump sum payment announced for the first time in the 1997 budget took advantage of the end of fiscal year surplus by being ‘booked’ in the current fiscal year, rather than the fiscal year for the budget. It was a practice that the Governor General took exception to but was defended by the government (GV-ED-30).

164

The key policy initiative of third mandate was the second Memorandum to Cabinet, which was led again by Christine Nymark, who had moved to Industry Canada Life Sciences Policy Branch. Looking at various activities of policy actors (e.g. federal government, granting councils, industry, provincial government) during the third mandate, allows me to unpack the ideational and material effects of the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines on decisions and actions culminating in the 2000 federal budget announcement of a $160m investment to create Genome Canada (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4. Ideational and material effects of promise of genomics discourse during the third mandate.

Policy Initiative Decision Ideational Effect Material Effect

Industry Canada Kevin Lynch hosts Adopting promise of Mobilizing funding Biotechnology Industry Canada genomics subject- Dinner biotechnology dinner in position Attracting/mobilizing April 1999 support Re-conceptualizing CBS agrees to provide interests, priorities additional funding ($500k) for revising Recognizing new Genome Canada opportunities proposal and developing business plan and governance model

Genome Canada Life Sciences Branch – Adopting promise of Coordinating Memorandum to Industry Canada takes genomics subject- activities Cabinet lead on second position as federal Memorandum to Cabinet policy position Mobilizing support

‘Biotech’ Ministers write Re-conceptualizing Expanding to Minister of Industry to interests, priorities, discourse-coalition support Genome Canada ideas MC Transforming Recognizing new institutional and Cabinet Committee on opportunities policy frameworks the Economic Union (CCEU) approves Creating new ways of Altering direction of Genome Canada MC thinking research

DM Finance persuaded Mobilizing funding to occupy promise of genomics subject- position – advises Finance Minister to

165

support Genome Canada proposal

$160m announced in 2000 federal budget to establish Genome Canada

Positioning MRC, NSERC, SSHRC, Adopting promise of Transforming Genome Canada NRC, Genome Canada genomics subject- institutional and within Canadian sign MOU position as a policy policy frameworks research system position Coordinating Intersubjectivity activities

Genome Canada CEOs send letters to Adopting promise of Mobilizing support seeks support from Cabinet Ministers genomics subject- industry position Expanding discourse-coalition

Ontario Genomics Ontario developed Adopting promise of Transforming Task Force genomics strategy and genomics subject- institutional and approved funding for position as a policy policy frameworks genome research projects position Expanding Atlantic Canada Atlantic Canada Shaping interests, discourse-coalition Genome Task consortium developed priorities and Force proposal for a Centre for preferences Altering direction of Comparative and research Microbial Genomics Recognizing opportunities Coordinating activities

Re-conceptualizing interests and recognizing new opportunities to mobilize support and funding: Industry Canada-hosted ‘genome’ dinners.

Deputy Ministers are important policy actors, particularly in the budget process. Without them as champions of a policy initiative, it is unlikely to succeed (GV-ID-10). As Deputy Minister of a powerful Ministry, Kevin Lynch played a pivotal role in taking up the promise of

166 genomics/Genome Canada subject-position and becoming an active member of the promise of genomics discourse-coalition. Mr. Lynch took an early interest in Genome Canada; he was convinced of the promise of genomics and the promise of Genome Canada (INT-15, GV-ID-10, TF-M-15). Mr. Lynch briefed his Minister and advocated to his Deputy Minister counterparts in other CBS departments, in particular Mr. David Dodge, Deputy Minister of Health (TF-M-20); he arranged for the Genome Canada Task Force to advocate at high-level policy briefings (TF-R- 14, TF-R-15), gave approval for the second Memorandum to Cabinet process and hosted two dinners that brought together GTF members, senior policy advisors and politicians (INT-4): April 19, 1999 (TF-ID-19, TF-M-8, TF-M-9) and November 9, 1999 (TF-M-24).

The first dinner in April 1999 was organized in response to interest in genomics expressed by the Minister of Finance, who had been speaking with Henry Friesen and was said to be “kind of fascinated” by genomics (INT-4). In fact, awareness of genomics had reached the Prime Minister, who had sent a letter to Dr. Tsui in March (TF-M-9).21 In preparing the GTF for the dinner, Industry Canada representatives “expressed strong support for the principles of Genome Canada” and were “prepared to receive a proposal for interim funding to support Genome Canada in the next year” (TF-M-9). There are, therefore, strong indications that the promise of genomics discourse was having a persuasive effect on the most influential of policy decision makers in shaping their interests, attracting support and funding. Senior bureaucrats (Deputy Ministers) and Cabinet Ministers, including the Minister Finance, attended the April 19th dinner. By hosting the dinner, Kevin Lynch made a very public statement of his position on the promise of genomics and was expecting that others would also ‘step into’ the promise of genomics subject-position. The government policy actors at the dinner were intrigued enough by the promise of genomics discourse articulated by Drs. Hudson and Tsui to want to more fully understand how it might serve their department mandates and broader policy priorities. According to an interviewee, the Finance Minister saw the promise of genomics, but needed ‘help’ to translate the promise of genomics discourse into policy relevant language: “So, Paul Martin said, I think this is important, but he said, I don’t put money into something I don’t

21 There are several vague references to a March 1999 letter sent by the Prime Minister to Dr. Tsui, in which the Prime Minister stressed the “need to ensure effective use of existing resources in genomics” (TF-M-8, TF-M-9). No one interviewed could remember the details of this letter, although some could remember that there was a letter from the Prime Minister. Access to information requests were unsuccessful in locating a copy of the letter.

167 understand. So, we’ve got to try and bring this down so even a Minister of Finance can understand what they’re talking about” (INT-4). In order to make the promise of genomics discourse more relevant to the decision makers, including the Finance Minister, the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Secretariat agreed to additional financial support for the Genome Canada Task Force (TF-M-14): To enable Genome Canada to focus on improving the quality of their proposal, to work out considerable governance issues and to facilitate the development of a strong business plan, the CBS gave Genome Canada a grant of $500,000. This was a pivotal decision. It signalled that government was serious about funding for genome research, and it had a significant symbolic value in restoring the faith of the Interim Board of Genome Canada. The funding was also pivotal in enabling Genome Canada to engage non-scientific expertise to develop their proposal. (GV-ID-10, p. 7)

At the dinner, Industry Canada expressed a commitment to support the continuing efforts of Genome Canada Task Force (GCTF)22, with the goal of getting “a highly specific proposal on the table for the next Throne Speech” (TF-ID-19 n.p.). Three consultants were hired to support and assist the Genome Canada Task Force in developing the various elements that would form the proposal. One consultant worked with GCTF on a business plan, a strategy for the genome centres and presentations for parliamentary committees. Another consultant (Jim Mitchell, Sussex Circle) worked on the governance model. The third consultant, Harry Swain, (Sussex Circle) a former Deputy Minister of Industry Canada “met with the Deputy Ministers of departments represented on the Biotechnology Strategy, discussing genome research as a strategic investment if Canada wanted to be in the biotechnology game. He also met with senior officials in the Department of Finance” (GV-ID-10, p. 8). Mr. Swain took on the crucial role of knowledge broker that had been effectively missing during the second mandate. That the need for knowledge brokers in helping the politicians make sense of the promise of genomics was clearly recognized by senior bureaucrats was recalled in an interview with a former Assistant Deputy Minister closely involved in the Genome Canada file:

22 The GTF became the Genome Canada Task Force (GCTF) during the third mandate.

168

We said, Harry, the Minister of Finance wants to put some money into this thing. The Minister of Industry wants to support it, but we couldn’t explain it to the backyard neighbor. It’s just too complicated. So, could you sort of take it without doing too much violence to what they’re saying, put it into things that ordinary human beings could understand and discuss and explain to their mother-in-law?. . . put it in more layman’s terms because this was jargon amongst geneticists and tried to get them to think about applications and implications to the environment, and health, and industry. (INT-4)

Litfin (1994) defines knowledge brokers as “intermediaries between the original researchers, or the producers of knowledge, and the policymakers who consume that knowledge but lack the time and training necessary to absorb the original research. The ability of knowledge brokers. . .to frame and interpret scientific knowledge is a substantial source of political power” (p. 4). While the genomics scientists carried significant legitimacy (Litfin, 1994) for framing the promise of genomic science (knowledge yet to be) as a critical science policy issue, they were not perceived as effective knowledge brokers. Further comments from the former ADM highlight the difference between the discursive power of scientists as interpreters of reality and the discursive power of knowledge brokers to frame and interpret scientific knowledge in policy- relevant language (Litfin, 1994): we had two scientists came to speak to us. . .they were very prominent geneticists. . .they gave a very impassioned pitch for why we should encourage genomics. . .and when they went home, everybody said, what on earth were they talking about? It sounds interesting. We don’t understand it. It was just beyond everybody’s comprehension. (INT-4)

As a former Deputy Minister, Mr. Swain was quite adept at translating the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines into language that other Deputy Ministers and politicians would understand, and he knew how to frame the discourse in such a way that Genome Canada became the only policy option that made sense. Mr. Swain used the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines to create new meanings, new ideas, new ways of thinking among Deputy Ministers, which was necessary for them to be able to ‘step into’ the promise of genomics

169 subject-position and subsequently brief their Ministers.23 According to Ms Nymark, through Mr. Swain’s efforts “Genome Canada became known at the Deputy Minister level. It became the subject of discussion at bilateral and multilateral meetings. Deputies better understood the concept, the science and the significance of the initiative” (GV-ID-10, p. 8).

The Industry Canada dinner is a further indication of the discursive and material effects of the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines. Here the discourse begins to permeate into the senior ranks of the federal government with new meanings and ways for senior policy advisors and decision-makers to conceptualization their interests emerging. The material effects of the promise of genomics discourse are evident at the dinner, with senior officials offering their support to the continuing efforts to revise and improve the proposal for Genome Canada and with financial support demonstrating that the federal government was prepared to seriously consider ‘stepping into’ the promise of genomics/Genome Canada subject- position.

The generative power of the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines in the political arena: promise of genomics subject-position becomes departmental policy positions.

After working with the Genome Canada Task Force for several months, Kevin Lynch decided that the best approach would be to seek funding for Genome Canada, once again, through the budget process with another Memorandum to Cabinet. He assigned the MC, again, to Christine Nymark, who had recently become Director General, Life Sciences Branch, Industry Canada. The timelines again were very short—only two months to prepare the MC for the Cabinet Committee on the Economic Union (CCEU) meeting in November where priorities would be set for the 2000 budget (GV-ID-10). Ms Nymark assembled an MC team within Life Sciences Branch (LS-IC-MC), advised the central agencies of the intention to submit a “request for funding for Genome Canada into the priority setting exercise for Budget 2000” (GV-ID-10, p. 9) and engaged with the ‘biotechnology departments’ on briefings for Deputy Ministers and

23 What exactly Harry Swain said in his meetings with senior government policy actors is unknown. The details of his work done cannot be confirmed as no documentation/data was available. In fact, when asked by Research Money, Mr. Swain refused to provide details of his role in lobbying and advocating for Genome Canada, saying that “government processes should remain as mysterious as possible” (MD-69 n.p.).

170

Ministers. Once again, the power of the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines compelled the coordination of activities within the federal government, both horizontally across departments and vertically, within departments in order to meet requirements of and deadline for the MC. Such a material effect could not have occurred without policy actors stepping into the promise of genomics subject-position, (Epstein, 2008) or in the absence of a mutual understanding of or alignment of interests for the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse (Hajer, 1995, Litfin, 1994), which were mobilized through the expectations of genomics story-lines. With the decision to sponsor the Genome Canada MC, Industry Canada, as a federal department of the Canadian government took up the promise of genomics subject-position. Until this point, it can be argued that Kevin Lynch, as an individual, had identified himself in the promise of genomics subject-position. However, with his decision to have Industry Canada sponsor the MC, which meant that the Minister of Industry would approve and sign the MC, Mr. Lynch brought the department into the promise of genomics discourse-coalition. Industry Canada was now identified as a ‘promise of genomics/Genome Canada’ department. By stepping into the promise of genomics subject-position, Industry Canada had taken a policy position on both the promise of genomics and the promise of Genome Canada. As the federal department responsible for the country’s economic and industrial development and competitiveness, Industry Canada invoked the economic expectations of genomics story-line in positioning itself as a promise of genomics department.

Letters of support for the Genome Canada MC to the Minister of Industry from the six other “biotechnology” Ministers and the approval of the Genome Canada MC by the Cabinet Committee on the Economic Union (CCEU) (GV-ID-10) is further evidence of the discursive and material effects of the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines during the third mandate. Having supported the first MC during the second mandate, the ‘biotech’ Ministers maintained their promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse subject-positions into the third mandate, indicating that they had positioned their departments and aligned their priorities and interests with respect to certain expectations of genomics story-lines, relative to their departmental missions, and therefore the overall promise of genomics discourse. Furthermore, through the letters, the ‘biotech’ Ministers endorsed Genome Canada as the only policy option for meeting their Ministerial priorities. The approval of the Genome Canada MC by the Cabinet Committee on the Economic Union represented an ‘organizational’ level subject-position (Epstein, 2008) and an intersubjective willingness to

171 accept the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse. With the approval of the Genome Canada MC, the CCEU joined the promise of genomics discourse-coalition and recommended to Cabinet that the federal government step into the promise of genomics/Genome Canada subject- position and declare Canada a genomics nation (Epstein, 2008).

The central agencies of the Canadian federal government, Privy Council Office, Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Finance, are powerful organizations that collectively have a central coordinating function within the federal government. Each agency has distinct mandates that directly influence the government decision making process. The central agencies have responsibility for ensuring policy coordination, good administrative practices, as well as financial management (Smith, 2009). All have a direct role in advising the Prime Minister and/or Cabinet. The PCO acts as the secretariat for Cabinet and supports its decision-making process. The PCO works with federal departments on Memoranda to Cabinet, giving advice that often reflect the interests of the Prime Minister and/or Cabinet. The PCO’s power comes from its mandate to ensure that MCs are consistent with overall policy direction and its discretion as gatekeeper of what information gets to Cabinet (Smith, 2009).

The Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) provides support and advice to the Committee of Cabinet (Treasury Board) that has oversight of almost all government administrative activities, including expenditure management (Smith, 2009). All initiatives announced in the federal budget require a detailed Treasury Board submission in order to secure funding. The TBS reviews and challenges submissions on the basis of fiscal probity, accountability, compliance with legislation, protection of the public interest and program performance evaluation (Smith, 2009). The TBS provides advice and recommendations to the Treasury Board on approval of submissions.

The key responsibility of the Department of Finance is the annual federal budget. The Minister of Finance has substantial discretion over which proposals that have been approved by Cabinet are included in the budget. Line departments must go through the Department of Finance in order to get the financial resources necessary to begin new initiatives. Each central agency has considerable influence and authority to thwart proposals. As an interviewee explained: “So, Finance, Treasury Board and PCO’s role is to push and push and push, to make sure that the case is clear, and the case warranted. And sometimes, depending on who it is, they get carried away with the role as opposed to facilitating things. . .” (INT-15). Considerable dialogue and interaction with all three central agencies are therefore necessary for the success of an MC

172 proposing a major new initiative, especially one that advocates changes to existing institutional or policy frameworks on the basis of anticipated (future) outcomes leading to potential (future) impacts or benefits for Canada.

The only real resistance to the promise of genomics discourse during the third mandate came from the central agencies. In the case of the Department of Finance, the challenge to the promise of genomics discourse came from the bureaucrats, not from the Minister, who had already expressed a tentative interest in the promise of genomics/Genome Canada, pending more detailed policy analysis (INT-4; INT-8; INT-17). Throughout the third mandate the LS-IC-MC team were confronted with continued skepticism towards the promise genomics/Genome Canada discourse from their colleagues in the central agencies. An interviewee directly involved in drafting the MC recalled the difficulties: “We had probably one of the most difficult, tenacious Finance Officers I’d ever dealt with in my 30 years. And so, he would never brief positively; he would only brief negatively, and he only gave negative feedback. . .And so, it was a cat and mouse game for quite some time. . .” (INT-15). Communications (e.g. emails, memos) between the central agencies and LS-IC-MC team show that the central agencies did not consider the promise of genomics or the promise of Genome Canada discourses to be compelling or convincing. The opposition from the central agencies took the form of discourse that challenged the veracity of the promise of genomics for Canada’s economic future and the promise of Genome Canada as the only policy option for realizing the vision. The central agencies requested additional information on the economic importance of genomics and the economic expectations of genomics and Genome Canada (GV-IC-16).

The Department of Finance questioned the need for additional targeted funding of genome research and a new independent organization to coordinate genome research activities when “significant investments are being made now to establish genome centres” and “coordination of decision-making is taking place” (GV-IC-5 n.p.). Recent funding of genomics infrastructure from CFI, including awards to Dr. Tsui and Dr. Hudson were highlighted in a memo (GV-IC-5) from Mr. Richard Botham to Ms Nymark and to various officials in the central agencies shortly after an interdepartmental meeting about Genome Canada in mid-November 1999, a week prior to the CCEU meeting. The memo listed recently announced awards for genomics research infrastructure and pointed out that “CFI tells me that it anticipates processing similar proposals in the next competition” expected to be announced in summer 2000 (GV-IC-5). The implication,

173 according to Mr. Botham, was that Genome Canada’s causal story of inadequate funding and poor coordination of genomics research activities was not supported by the evidence. He recommended that “the proposal for Genome Canada should take account of this spending in characterizing the current environment and in explaining how these new augmented centres will be incorporated with Genome Canada’s centres” (GV-IC-5). The email was forwarded by Mr. Botham several days later to two Assistant Deputy Ministers in the Department of Finance (Mr. David Watters, Ms Margaret McCuaig-Johnston) to advise them of his concerns: “By way of background for your potential meeting with. . .two of the principle scientists behind Genome Canada”, who were successful in “receiving awards from the first major CFI competition” (GV- IC-20 n.p.).24 This discourse was clearly attempting to create doubts about the promise of genomics/Genome Canada and to raise questions about the motives of the researchers advocating for Genome Canada. The effects of this discursive challenge were to intensify the efforts by the LS-IC-MC team to frame the promise of genomics/Genome Canada within the economic expectations of genomics story-line and link it to the promise of science economic policy discourse. Linking to existing policy priorities of the government was deemed more critical than translation into policy priorities by a former Industry Canada policy advisor (INT-15): . . .scientists in some of our agencies are pathetic at developing proposals that meet the policy and program requirements that the system demands. Because it’s not their skill, it’s not even fair to ask them. It takes the ability to manoeuvre through the system to get something done. Doesn’t matter whether it’s science or employment insurance or family care. That capacity to manoeuvre through the system and understand how it works and to touch all the buttons that all the central agencies want . . . Not only translated into policy priorities but linking to the existing policy priorities of the government. (INT-15)

Beyond the role for knowledge brokers described by Litfin (1994), which involved translating knowledge into policy-relevant language for decision makers and outlining specific policy proposals, for the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse, knowledge brokers also needed to link the discourse to existing policy priorities and discourses. The LS-IC-MC team

24 The potential meeting referred to in the email may be the November 22, 1999 meeting with Treasury Board and the Department of Finance included in the agenda of the November 30, 1999 GCIBD meeting (TF-M-26).

174 took on this expanded role of knowledge broker to translate and frame the promise of the genomics/Genome Canada discourse such that it was directly linked to the economic policy discourse, such as biotechnology and the knowledge-based economy. A letter from Ms Nymark to a colleague in the PCO demonstrates this expanded knowledge broker role: “Last week, during the discussions [we] had. . .we promised to send you information on the economic importance of genomics and biotechnology. Please find this paper attached” (GV-IC-16 n.p.). The attached document linked the promise of genomics/Genomic Canada discourse directly to potential increases Canada’s share of the global biotechnology market, job creation, direct economic returns on investment, indirect economic impacts of growth in key economic sectors such as agri-food and economic spillovers, such as social returns on investment (GV-IC-16). In addition to translating the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse into policy impacts and emphasizing the importance of Genome Canada to realizing the impacts, the LS-IC-MC team, also linked the promise of genomics discourse to the promise of science policy discourse that appeared in the recent speech from the Throne: “The Government will also ensure that it has a modern and effective research and science capacity to promote the health, safety and economic well-being of Canadians” (GV-ED-17, p. 9). Such discursive strategies of translating and linking the promise of genomics discourse to policy priorities were also used by Harry Swain in his (expanded) role as a knowledge broker in briefing Deputy Ministers (GV-ID-10).

Even after being approved by the CCEU in November 1999, the resistance from the central agencies continued, threatening the chances for Genome Canada to be included in the budget: But Finance was impenetrable. . .we realized that they were doing their machinery of government job and they were doing their financial probity job, but they were also not focused on the science at all and didn’t really understand it. But, more importantly, they really didn’t get the opportunity for economic growth for Canada through it. So, at one point it became quite obvious that the link to economic growth just wasn’t there. And that’s the way Finance looks at things. . .If it’s going to provide serious economic benefits to Canada. . .then that’s a major factor in justifying. . .giving money. (INT-15) With what was beginning to look like intractable resistance to the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse, the focus shifted, in January 2000, to convincing the Department of Finance, specifically the Deputy Minister that Genome Canada warranted budget support. According to Ms Nymark: “It then became the job of officials to convince Finance that this was the right

175 proposal to support genomics research and to justify the funding levels” (GV-ID-10, p. 10). A series of briefings were necessary to persuade senior Finance officials of the promise of genomics and to assuage their concerns over the safety and ethics of biotechnology and genome research. A scientific briefing by Dr. Friesen and Dr. Alex McKenzie was pivotal in finally persuading the bureaucrats in the Department of Finance to take up the promise of genomics subject-position by drawing the health expectations of genomics story-line (GV-ID-10, TF-M- 26). The outcome of the briefing illustrates the power of knowledge brokers as discursive agents. Drs. Friesen and McKenzie played the role of knowledge brokers more closely described by Litfin (1994) by focusing on translating the promise of science into something easily relatable to personal experience: . . .we went to see Scott Clark, who was the Deputy of Finance, pre-budget. I think the decision had been probably significantly, maybe not finally, but was almost made. . .And so, we had an interesting conversation about why genomics was important. . .I explained that some day with genomics, as the science advances, it will be applied to the health field in a very significant way. . .There are millions of people who are on anti-hypertensives. The truth is some fraction of those. . ., 10-20%, probably are receiving absolutely no benefit, but they’re suffering all the side-effects of this medication because of genetic, genomic make- up. And vice versa, there are some who aren’t getting enough because they’re metabolizing it faster than they ought to because of their genomic make-up. And if we can identify those, right there you’re saving billions of dollars to the health system, quite apart from the benefit to the patients. So, we went away and then the decision was taken and $160m. . .When I left Ottawa, I had a small dinner for people. . .including Scott Clark. . .at the end of dinner he said to me. . .do you remember the conversation we had about hypertension? You didn’t know, but I was having a serious problem with treatment of hypertension. I wasn’t getting much benefit, but I was sure having a lot of the side-effects. So, when you referenced that, I went back to the Minister in the afternoon and said, Minister, we’ve got to do genomics. (INT-14) The power of the expectations of genomics of story-lines is demonstrated by Mr. Clark’s response. He stepped into the promise of genomics subject-position through the health expectations of the genomics story line. He made sense of and understood the promise of the

176 genomics discourse through an interpretation of the discourse based on personal experience. After the scientific briefing, the only issues remaining to be resolved were funding levels and governance structure (GV-ID-10). A week before budget day Genome Canada was advised that it would be funded in the 2000 budget (GV-ID-10).

Expanding discourse-coalition mobilizes support from policy actors occupying the promise of genomics subject-position.

The promise of genomics discourse continued to be disseminated and debated in the polis among the GTF, industry, academic and provincial policy actors, while being negotiated in the political arena. Various initiatives, decisions and actions external to the MC process are salient to understanding the ideational and material effects of the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines during the third mandate. The Memorandum of Understanding signed by Genome Canada, the National Research Council and the three research granting councils, letters from CEOs of Canadian genomics companies to Cabinet Ministers urging support for Genome Canada and provincial genome policy initiatives demonstrated the growing and expanding generative power of the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines in the polis during the third mandate.

In November 1999, Genome Canada, NRC, NSERC, SSHRC and MRC signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was intended to demonstrate the support of the granting councils for the promise of genomics/Genome Canada vision, but also to delineate how the existing research funding institutional framework would be adapted to accommodate Genome Canada and how the key players would interact and collaborate within the new framework (TF-ID-20, TF-ID-21). The MOU laid out Genome Canada’s mandate, the accountability framework under which Genome Canada would operate and the review process for gaining access to the genome centres. The MOU addressed the role of the granting councils in supporting Genome Canada’s mandate. The role outlined for the granting councils required them to commit to changes in their own institutional frameworks, such as aligning their genomics-related activities with the national genomics strategic research plan and coordinating their peer-review and decision-making mechanisms with Genome Canada. Under the terms of the MOU the granting councils agreed “to develop a single application and a joint peer review and decision-making mechanism with Genome Canada on genomics research consistent with the Canadian genomics strategy” and “to keep Genome Canada informed of the research funded by the Granting Councils in the area of

177 genomics” (TF-ID-21, p. 4). By agreeing to these conditions, the granting councils publicly adopted the promise of genomics subject-position and identified their organizations as ‘promise of genomics organizations’, supporting a specific policy option—Genomic Canada—for realizing the promise genomics. The MOU represents empirical evidence that the granting councils had not only altered their way of thinking about how genomics research should be funded in Canada, it is also evidence that the granting councils had taken up a policy position on Genome Canada, supporting it as the policy option for realizing the promise of genomics. As such, they actively contributed to the transformation of Canada’s existing research funding institutional and policy framework. Both ideational and material effects of the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse is reflected in the MOU, which required the collaboration of five organizations and coordination of their activities in order to come to a mutual agreement.

The Canadian federal research granting councils are well-established, powerful entities within the Canadian research institutional framework. They hold considerable influence and autonomy over the direction and funding of academic research. None of the organizations were coerced into signing the MOU; it was a voluntary decision and action taken independently by the Presidents of each council. The absence of CFI on the MOU confirms the generative power of persuasion of the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse rather than the material power of a policy actor controlling the decisions and actions of the council Presidents. CFI recognized the promise of genomics for Canada; it had developed its own genomics strategy, independent of input from Genome Canada (GV-ED-15). However, while the CFI shaped its interests and priorities around the promise of genomics and transformed its institutional framework in response; it did not envision Genome Canada as the only policy option for realizing the promise of genomics. The promise of Genome Canada discourse was not persuasive in reshaping CFI’s ways of thinking about genomics research funding. There was a reluctance on the part of the CFI towards the promise of Genome Canada in realizing the promise of genomics. The CFI fully acknowledged the promise of genomics in service to Canada but did not support Genome Canada as the policy approach for achieving the promise of genomics for Canada. CFI did not ‘step into’ the promise of Genome Canada subject-position. There were separate discussions between Genome Canada and the CFI regarding a cooperative working relationship and an agreement in principle was drafted and discussed, however; it is uncertain whether a formal agreement was ever reached (TF-ID-22, TF-M-22).

178

Engaging industry leaders was a key discursive strategy used by the GCTF during the third mandate. The promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse produced a distinct promise of genomics subject-position for Canadian industry. Industry leaders were compelled to occupy the subject-position by the generative power of the promise of genomics discourse. As Epstein (2008) argues, discourses are a locus for the production of a discursive identity. The promise of genomics discourse created a distinct industry promise of genomics identity which produced industry leaders as agents, giving them a voice in the policy process (Epstein, 2008). Before industry CEO’s could write the letters, they had to occupy the promise of genomics subject- position, which identified them as advocates of Genome Canada. Occupying the promise of genomics subject-position not only establishes the promise of genomics identity, it is a precondition for any action. From the industry promise of genomics subject-position, industry leaders mobilized the promise of genomics discourse, through specific expectations of genomics story-lines, by meeting with and writing letters to Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers (TF-ID-15). Ms Nymark noted in her case study that Ministers received numerous letters from industry in the weeks leading up to the federal budget (GV-ID-10). The letters to Members of Parliament (MPs) and Cabinet Ministers sent from industry leaders represent both an ideational and material effect of the promise of genomics discourse. Materially, the promise of genomics discourse was instrumental in mobilizing and coordinating the CEOs’ letter writing. The CEOs were not coerced to write the letters; they were persuaded by the generative power of the promise of genomics discourse.

The provinces had begun to develop their own genome research strategies in response to the promise of genomics discourse and in anticipation of Genome Canada funding (MD-69). Ontario, Atlantic Canada, Alberta and Quebec were working on initiatives and strategies. Research Money reported in early December 1999 that “[p]rovincial governments are lining up in anticipation of the federal government’s approval of Genome Canada. . .The provinces are eager to convince Genome Canada officials that their jurisdictions offer the best elements of a

179 vibrant technology cluster” (MD-74 n.p.). Ontario had started developing a genome research strategy in March 199825 and had formed an Ontario Genomics Initiative Task Force to: provide advice on genome-type applications already being considered for funding under the Ontario Research & Development Challenge Fund (ORDCF) and to recommend mechanisms that would provide continuous advice on the needs and the funding of province-wide proposals in this area. (GV-ID-25, p. 2) The Ontario Genomics Initiative Task Force report (GV-ID-25) recommended funding for four genomics proposals that had been submitted to the ORDCF and proposed “the establishment of the Ontario Genomics Initiative Advisory Board” (GV-ID-25, p. 2).

Several other provinces had announced genome-related projects. Quebec, Alberta and the Atlantic Provinces had developed either funding strategies and/or proposals for genome centres, positioning themselves strategically for regional genome centres in anticipation of Genome Canada being funded. Quebec was in the early stages of strategic planning, which included a needs assessment survey (MD-69). Alberta and Atlantic Canada were developing initiatives based on an academic consortium model (MD-69). In the west, the University of Alberta, University of Calgary and Lethbridge University had announced plans for a national proteomics centre and the Alberta government was working on a strategic plan aligned with Genome Canada’s vision (MD-69). The Atlantic Canada initiative for a Centre for Comparative and Microbial Genomics had been developed by the Atlantic Canada Genome Task Force (ACGTF), a consortium of universities, the NRC, industry associations and provincial economic development agencies. It was tightly integrated into the Genome Canada vision with the expectation that it would be one of the Genome Canada genome centres: “Our vision is to establish THE world’s leading centres in comparative and microbial genomics, capitalizing on our local world-class expertise in these areas, and in parallel offering strategic alignment with the scope and overall mandate of Genome Canada” (TPD-33, p. 1-2). The Atlantic Canada vision was strongly embedded in the promise of genomics discourse and built around scientific, technological and economic expectations story-lines and linked to the federal government’s

25 The two central documents related to Ontario’s genomics strategy were undated (GV-ID-24; GV-ID-25). I was unable to confirm whether the documents were written in 1998 or 1999. I have chosen 1998, based on feedback from Ontario Genomics.

180 promise of science economic policy discourse. The ACGTF aggressively promoted and advocated for the proposal with several briefings to Genome Canada and Industry Canada and letters to Cabinet Ministers (GV-EC-6, GV-EC-36, TF-M-33, TF-M-35).

By the time that the Genome Canada MC went to the Cabinet Committee on the Economic Union, the promise of genomics discourse-coalition was a diverse, heterogeneous group of policy actors, including genome researchers, industry, academia, provincial and federal governments, united around a mutual vision of the promise of genomics and the promise of Genome Canada held together by shared set of expectations of genomics story-lines. The intersubjectivity of the promise of genomics discourse contributed to the widespread mobilization of diverse policy actors in supporting and acting in the present on the promise of genomics discourse to make genomics research funding decisions.

Positioning Canada as a promise of genomics nation: Investing in the promise of Genome Canada.

Budgets are, ultimately, the decision of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. The proposals approved by Cabinet are short-listed by the Minister of Finance. In consultation with the Prime Minister, the final decision on what initiatives make it into the federal budget are made from the short-list. In announcing the $160m investment in Genome Canada, the 2000 federal budget invoked several expectations of genomics story-lines, including science, technology, economy, health organization, social and environment, to discursively link the promise of genomics to biotechnology for realizing and addressing the promise of science in service to Canada: Biotechnology is poised to be a major engine of the new economy and is expanding our understanding of all living organisms. Research in this field is creating new medicines, new tools for health diagnosis, more nutritious crops with higher yields and new technologies for cleaning up the environment. Genomic science is key to the advancement of biotechnology. . .This research has opened the door to continuing advances in the early identification and treatment of diseases. . . (GV-ED-19, p. 111) In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance emphasized the health and social expectations of genomics story-lines: “Gene research will save the lives of many. It will enhance the lives of still more” (GV-ED-20, p. 12). The investment in Genome Canada was included as part of other

181 investments envisioned to make Canada’s economy more innovative (GV-ED-19). It was one of several budget commitments to support research and innovation, which was consistent with the innovation and knowledge-based economy promise of science policy discourse.

The social dynamics of belonging (Epstein, 2008), as discursively articulated through the status expectations of genomics story-line played a significant role in shaping the decision to invest in Genome Canada. With the decision to include Genome Canada in the 2000 federal budget, the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister (representing the government of Canada) took an explicit policy position and identified Canada as a ‘promise of genomics nation’; placing Canada in the promise of genomics subject-position. By accepting the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse, the federal government marked the country as a ‘genomics nation’ both to Canadians and importantly, to other genomics nations, particularly those already identified with the international human genome program. It was one of many ways that the country could be positioned scientifically and technologically. Genomics was the ‘latest’ science that could be used to position a nation’s interests in science and technology and innovation, particularly with the policy trend towards the knowledge-based economy. The lack of national genome research funding was denying Canada recognition as a genomics nation and excluding the country from participating in the international human genome project, which it had an instrumental role in establishing (TF-R-1). Funding genomics research through existing mechanisms was not enough for Canada to gain an identity as a genomics nation. Even as little as $22.5m over five years with the CGAT program had been enough to give Canada its identity as a genomics nation (MD-99). Without a specific genomics funding initiative Canada was no longer recognized as a member of the elite group of promise of genomics nations. The federal investment Genome Canada allowed Canada to discursively frame itself as a promise of genomics nation, but perhaps even more importantly, to position itself as a scientifically and technologically advanced nation that had taken material action to become a knowledge-based economy.

Over the course of the third mandate the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines were mobilized within an expanding promise of genomics discourse- coalition that eventually reshaped the interests, identities, ideas, preferences and positions of the ultimate decision-makers in the Canadian government – the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister, such that they were persuaded to transform the existing research funding institutional and policy frameworks with the formation Genome Canada, a new organizational entity that

182 would coordinate and manage Canada’s genomics research. Paul Martin, Finance Minister, having met with members of the GTF and spoken with Henry Friesen, regarded genomics as important basic, discovery research that had great potential for advancing his vision of Canada as a knowledge-based economy (INT-4, INT-8, INT-17). According to Epstein (2008), actors must take up a subject-position before they can engage in action; it is a precondition for policy making. Ideational effects of discourse precede material effects. If policy makers, in particular the Finance Minister and Prime Minister, had not ‘stepped into’ the promise of genomics/Genome Canada subject-position, reconceptualizing their ways of thinking about how research could be funded and managed through the promise of Genome Canada and seeing new opportunities for achieving their economic policy objectives and for identifying Canada as a scientifically and technologically advanced nation through the promise of genomics, it is unlikely that Genome Canada would exist today.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 4 examined what promise of genomics discourses and related expectations of genomics story-lines were used to argue and advocate for a nationally coordinated and funding genome research program and the key ideational and material effects of that discursive framing. The findings are not limited to an analysis of the content of the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines and the effects of the discourse, but also payed attention to several features of the different discourses that were the empirical focus of my analyses. For each mandate, I described the various ways that the promise of science was framed by the broader federal policy discourse. The analysis also considered the discursive patterns and shifts of the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines over the three mandates in the transition from the polis to the political arena and in response to the evolving broader promise of science policy discourse. The ideational effects and material impacts of the promise of genomics discourse were illustrated through specific examples of decisions and actions taken in each mandate and explained by drawing on the theoretical concepts presented in Chapter 2. The success of the GTF’s vision of establishing Genome Canada effectively created a new type of research funding agency, complete with its own institutional and policy frameworks, that remain almost 20 years later. Moreover, during the three mandates, the promise of genomics discourse also re-shaped existing institutional and policy frameworks throughout the Canadian research system. The major findings are summarized in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5. Summary of findings

1st Mandate 2nd Mandate 3rd Mandate Major themes of the promise of Knowledge-based economy Knowledge-based economy Unprecedented investments in science policy discourse Knowledge as infrastructure Innovation science, research, innovation Biotechnology Productivity/competitiveness S&T become policy priority, Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Genomics R&D crucial to success of dominating policy agenda National system of innovation biotechnology industry Link between knowledge, International competitiveness Canadian Biotechnology Strategy innovation, knowledge-based CFI, NCE Knowledge creation, dissemination, economy commercialization Productivity Universities – key actor, basic research, commercialization Major themes of the promise of Basic genomics science and research Shift in target audience from Further transition into political arena genomics discourse crucial to Canada’s economic future scientists to government bureaucrats, with continued activity in polis politicians Lack of genomics funding leaves Focus on performative elements of Canada at risk of falling behind Framed as a policy issue aligned with discourse over descriptive and scientifically, economically promise of science policy discourse normative

A nationally funded, coordinated Basic research precursor to applied Promise of Genome Canada vital to genomics research initiative— research leading to socio-economic realizing promise of genomics for Genome Canada envisioned to re- impacts Canada’s future establish Canada in international leadership position and ensure future Applications of genomics science for Genome Canada ONLY policy in new millennium economic sectors option

Foundation for innovation in 21st Alternative promissory discourses century challenge promise of Genome Canada, but NOT promise of Return on investment genomics

Dominant expectations of genomics Science Science Economy story-lines -advances in basic science, including -link between advances in basic -dominant story-line knowledge and understanding of science, applied science and socio- -science, technology story-lines more genomes (human, model organisms) economic impacts closely integrated with economic -mapping and sequencing human and -functional and applied genomics impacts model organism genomes -existing national research system -future success of biotechnology -importance of basic research to incapable of responding to challenges industry tied to genomics research applied research and innovation and opportunities of genomics

183 184

-improvements to national system of -envisioned more productive, -return on investment attributed to innovation and research system efficient research system through Genome Canada rather than genome centralized coordination, research Technology management -wealth creation -access to leading edge research -improved government-academic- infrastructure industry collaboration Organization -development of new technologies -need for coordinated, integrated with improved efficiency, cost- Technology national genome strategy effectiveness, including automation -technological applications in key -new organizational structure -new technologies for industrial economic sectors required applications in key economic sectors -technology research platforms as -Genome Canada envisioned as -growing concerns over trends in key driver for building Canadian bridge between existing, inadequate patenting research capacity, expertise, funding infrastructure required providing centralized access to -Genome Canada Economy leading-edge tools and equipment supports/compliments genomics -increased economic growth, -patenting a barrier to Canadian mandate of granting councils and performance, competitiveness access to strategic knowledge, threat SBDAs – NOT a funding agency -attract domestic, international to international competitiveness -importance of genome centres investment -develop Canadian intellectual -job creation property for freedom to operate Science -applications, outcomes, impacts of Status Economy advances in genomics science -falling behind -emergence of technical discourse -envision balance between basic and -being shut out of international with transition into political arena applied genomics science genomics research community -return on investment -functional, applied genomics key -international reputation threatened -direct link between genomics research priorities -must re-claim position of research and industrial benefits -re-enforce economy story-line international leadership -improved competitiveness, linking genome science, research productivity in key economic sectors directly to economic growth, -genomics research critical success productivity, quality of life, standard factor for survival, growth of of living biotechnology industry Technology Status -continue to envision access to and -Canada at cross roads development of genomic -make up for lost ground in key areas technologies of research critical to nation’s future -enable role of genome centres for -investment in genomics research access and development envisioned to put Canada at forefront -access linked to intellectual property of genomics science and innovation development

Policy

185

-left behind, left out due to lack of -Genome Canada pivotal role in funding AND lack of coordinated developing and implementing strategy coherent national genomics strategy allowing Canada to realize promise Policy of genomics -genomics essential to success of -importance of Genome Canada and CBS genomics research to success of CBS -introduction of the promise of -importance of GE3LS research Genome Canada as only policy option to realize promise of genomics -genomics research critical for supporting biotechnology regulatory system, building regulatory science capacity -importance of GE3LS research to support genomics policy development and public understanding and acceptance Ideational and material effects Shaping preferences and Horizontal and vertical Re-conceptualizing interests and mobilizing funding: the CBS Task coordination expanding the recognizing new opportunities to Force: discourse-coalition and mobilizing mobilize support and funding: support for the promise of Industry Canada biotechnology Roy Atkinson sends GTF New Vision genomics – Investing in dinner: report to CBS-TF after meeting with biotechnology memorandum to GTF Chair Dr. Tsui cabinet: Kevin Lynch hosts two Genome Canada dinners $350k CBS funding to MRC for AAFC decides to take lead in GE3LS research and GTF drafting Memorandum to Cabinet: CBS agrees to provide additional Investing in Biotechnology, funding ($500k) for revising Genome New ways of thinking about requesting funding for (1) regulation Canada proposal and developing medical research funding of products of biotechnology, (2) business plan and governance model transform institutional biotechnology research in federal frameworks: the MRC: laboratories, and (3) Genome Canada The generative power of the promise of genomics discourse and MRC commits $25m/5 years for CBS-RD agrees to champion expectations of genomics story- genomics research Genome Canada proposal as part of lines in the political arena: the Memorandum to Cabinet promise of genomics subject- MRC establishes 2 new genomics position becomes departmental research programs CBS Ministers and Cabinet adopt policy positions. promise of genomics policy

186

Coordinating activities and the position – approving Investing in Life Sciences Branch – Industry power of discursive positioning: Biotechnology MC. Canada takes lead on second the granting councils, NRC and Memorandum to Cabinet CFI: Memorandum to Cabinet signed seven ‘biotechnology’ Ministers sign ‘Biotech’ Ministers write to Minister Granting councils, NRC, CFI attend of Industry to support Genome Genome Canada proposal briefing Memorandum to Cabinet approved Canada MC session by Cabinet Cabinet Committee on the Economic NSERC supports promise of Funding federal ‘biotechnology’ Union (CCEU) approves Genome genomics visions and agrees to research – responding to genomic Canada MC present GTF proposal for Genome under-determinancy: Canada to governing council DM Finance persuaded to occupy $55m announced in federal budget promise of genomics subject-position NRC agrees to consolidate its for biotechnology in federal – advises Finance Minister to support genomics proposal with GTF, laboratories Genome Canada proposal including academic peer review and performance appraisal model Expanding discourse-coalition mobilizes support from policy actors occupying the promise of genomics subject-position:

MRC, NSERC, SSHRC, NRC, Genome Canada sign MOU

CEOs send letters to Cabinet Ministers

Ontario developed genomics strategy and approves funding for genome research projects

Atlantic Canada consortium developed proposal for a Centre for Comparative and Microbial Genomics

Positioning Canada as a promise of genomics nation: Investing in the promise of Genome Canada:

187

$160m announced in 2000 federal budget to establish Genome Canada

Chapter 5 Discussion, Conclusions and Implications

My thesis is grounded in an argument that closer attention to the promise of science, which is a ubiquitous, yet overlooked, belief underpinning research policy, is necessary in order to better understand the complex interplay between science and society that research policy seeks to engineer and navigate. Research policies have become important, strategic sources of economic growth and competitiveness and social progress and improvement, based on the long-standing belief in the promise of science. Yet, as I contend in Chapter 1, there is growing frustration over the paradox of the promise of science: the success of science in contributing to socio-economic progress and well-being and the failure of science to live up to expectations or even contributing to the social challenges it is expected to resolve. I argue that the promise of science has not been subjected to close scrutiny or examination and as such remains an enigma to scholars and policy practitioners. My thesis represents a first step towards gaining insights of the power of the promise of science in shaping research policy choices, decisions and processes by asking the question: How did expectations of genomics, as promise of genomics discourse, shape the creation of Genome Canada?

Using concepts from discursive policy analysis and the sociology of expectations, my thesis examined the ways that promise of genomics discourses and expectations of genomics story- lines influenced policy decisions and actions related to genomics research funding. I traced the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines of a research policy process that extended over three years from 1997-2000, culminating in a federal investment of $160m to establish Genome Canada. I used a qualitative, interpretive, single case study design that included elite interviews, archival and documentary data sources. Using categorizing and connecting strategies and thematic analysis, I focused on: (1) policy discourse framed by the promise of science, (2) discourse about the promise of genomics, particularly the ways that expectations of genomics scientific research, technological development and socio-economic impacts were framed, understood, envisaged and talked about, (3) how the discourse evolved over the three years in each of the three mandates and (4) the ideational and material effects of the promise of genomics discourse.

188 189

Chapter 5 begins with a discussion of key points that summarize the findings presented in Chapter 4 and highlight where my findings are consistent with or in contrast to the theoretical grounding presented in Chapter 2. In the second section of this Chapter, I offer conclusions related to the argument I introduced in Chapter 1 and my research question. The final section of Chapter 5 reflects on the implications of my thesis in academic and policy contexts.

Discussion

I focus on eight key points that are salient in understanding and making sense of how promise of genomics discourse shaped the policy process that culminated in Genome Canada: (1) the discursive patterns and relationships of the expectations of genomics story-lines, (2) the evolution of the expectations of genomics story-lines, (3) the epistemic nature of expectations of genomics story-lines as knowledge ‘yet-to-be’, (4) promise of genomics discourse and the precautionary principle, (5) ideational effects as a precondition for material impacts, (6) the generative power of the promise of genomics discourse, (7) the role of discursive agents in the polis and political arena and (8) the importance of the policy context.

Discursive Patterns and Relationships of the Expectations of Genomics Story-Lines

I identified several discursive patterns in and relationships among the 11 expectations of genomics story-lines. Collectively, the expectations of genomics story-lines represent a unique interpretation of an organizing, analytical framework for the broader promise of genomics discourse. The range and diversity of expectations identified in my analysis have previously not been reported in the sociology of expectations literature. The expectations of genomics story- lines provided a diverse array of ways to envision the promise of genomics, allowing for wide interpretation of the promise of genomics discourse, as well as creating multiple sites for framing subject-positions. The expectations of genomics story-lines functioned to establish the scale and scope of the promise of genomics discourse, constraining what could be imagined for Canada’s future and the options available for realizing the future (Hajer, 1995; Laffey & Weldes, 1997). The diversity within and among the expectations of genomics story-lines contributed to the intersubjectivity of the promise of genomics discourse, allowing a broad and diverse discourse- coalition of policy actors to unite in support of the policy options advocated by the promise of genomics discourse.

190

Each of the expectations of genomics story-lines represented a recurring theme of the broader promise of genomics discourse and contributed to shaping and framing the promise of genomics discourse. The science, technology and economy expectations of genomics story-lines were the most dominant across the three mandates. The organization, policy and status expectations of genomics story-lines were generally minor in terms of framing the promise of genomics discourse but emerged as significant during certain mandates. The organization expectations of genomics story-line stressed the promise of Genome Canada as the only policy option capable of mitigating the risks and ensuring Canada realized the full potential of the promise of genomics. The organization expectations of genomics story-line took on its salience during the third mandate, in response to concerns from the central agencies, with a vision of a complex governance and accountability infrastructure. The status expectations of genomics story-line was minor relative to the more dominant expectations of genomics story-lines, however; it carried a strong rhetorical element of pathos (Finlayson, 2007; Gottweis, 2007) in that it invoked notions of nationalism, sovereignty and prestige. In their typology of the impacts of science, Godin & Doré (2005) suggested that the symbolic impact of science26 could be equally as compelling as the economic impact. Symbolic impacts of science are defined as legitimacy, credibility, visibility, notoriety and recognition (Godin & Doré, 2005). That scientists, organizations, and nations perceive and are perceived to gain status from being associated directly and indirectly in scientific activities is difficult to challenge. Countries are judged on the basis of their support for research and science, scientists vie for international recognition of their contributions to advancing science, and society, in general, affords considerable esteem to science and scientists. Crucially, the status expectations of genomics story-line created a subject-position (Epstein, 2008) that allowed all policy actors (individuals, organizations, and Canada) to identify as an advocate of the promise of genomics and to discursively identify Canada as a promise of genomics nation. The other five expectations of genomics story-lines: society, culture, health, environment and training represented additional ways of envisioning the socio-economic benefits of the promise of genomics to Canada’s future, giving policy actors multiple interpretations and translations of the promise of genomics discourse from which to shape their interests, priorities and preferences. My analysis suggested that these five expectations of genomics story-lines were

26 The Godin & Dore (2005) typology of the impacts of science refers to a symbolic impact, rather than a status expectation of science.

191 not directly instrumental, but supportive of the other more predominant expectations of genomics story-lines, in building a persuasive argument for the promise of genomics or the promise of Genome Canada. It is possible that the society and culture expectations of genomics story-lines could be subsumed by the policy expectations of genomics story-line and the training story-line incorporated into either the science or economy expectations of genomics story-lines depending on the context of the training expectations discourse. The health and environment story-lines could very well be very powerful elements of a promise of science discourse for other fields of science or for a promise of genomics discourse in other research policy contexts. The health expectations of genomics story-line certainly played a defining role for the promise of genomics discourse that shaped the United States’ genome research policy that created the Human Genome Project (Cook-Deegan, 2001). Its minor role in the overall Canadian context was an unexpected finding of my research, however; it did play a primary role in Health Canada’s genome research program and the NRC’s Genomics Initiative. The environment expectations of genomics story- line had a more definitive presence in genomics research programs of federal departments with natural resources management mandates (e.g. AAFC, Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada).

My findings indicate a relationship between the science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines and the other nine socio-economic expectations of genomics story-lines that could be a determinant of the success of the promise of genomics discourse in shaping the research policy process. The promise of genomics discourse was initially characterized predominantly by the science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines, particularly in the first mandate, where the target audience was mostly scientists. Science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines were sufficient for making a compelling argument for the need for genomics research funding during the first mandate. Once the promise of genomics discourse moved into the political arena, while the science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines were necessary to the argument, they were not sufficient for convincing policy advisors and politicians to make significant changes to Canada’s research policy framework. During the second and third mandates, the science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines became ‘precursors’ to the socio-economic expectations of genomics story- lines, which proved more persuasive in the political arena, because they were more easily linked directly to policy priorities. Similar findings have been reported by Birch et al. (2014), who argued that the relationship between science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines

192 and socio-economic story-lines highlights socio-economic promissory factors beyond science and technology, which the sociology of expectations of science and technology literature has tended to neglect. It is possible that the relationship between science and technology expectations and socio-economic expectations may be more salient for policy, particularly research policy, which both my thesis and Birch et al. (2014) considered, than for technological innovation, which has been the predominant focus of the sociology of expectations of science and technology literature.

A less obvious, but no less salient finding from my analysis relates to the political function of expectations of science and technology in shaping and transforming institutional and policy frameworks. The expectations of genomics story-lines were discursively framed as predictions of specific advances in genomic scientific knowledge, the development of technology and socio- economic impacts, which the sociology of expectations argues are instrumental in directing and guiding decisions, activities and actions to achieve that vision of the future. Yet, achieving specific scientific, technological or socio-economic impacts was not the only function of the expectations of genomics story-lines. I argue that the primary function of the expectations of genomics story-lines was to establish a new model for funding genomics research, that is to change or transform Canada’s research policy, regardless of whether the scientific, technological and socio-economic vision of the future was achieved. This finding is consistent with the results of discursive analyses of the European knowledge-based bio-economy promissory narrative (Birch et al., 2014), the emerging imaginaries of the Canadian bio-economy (Birch, 2016), rival visions of sustainable agriculture (Levidow et al., 2012) and expectations of personal genomics susceptibility testing technologies (Groves & Tutton, 2013). In each of these cases, the primary effect of promissory discourses was in shaping policy and regulatory strategies rather than achieving the vision of the future framed by the discourse, whether scientific or socio-economic. Despite being discursively framed as a vision of the future, the expectations of genomics story- lines did not function as accurate, objective predictions of the future; instead, they functioned as discursive political practices intended to persuade policy actors of the necessity of a new model for funding genomics research (Finlayson, 2004).

193

Evolution of Expectations of Genomics Story-lines Across the Three Mandates

There were distinct discursive shifts in the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines over the three mandates. The evolution of the promise of genomics discourse over the three mandates was partially in response to several contextual, mediating factors. First, genome science was advancing rapidly with the intensifying international research efforts to map and sequence not only the human genome, but also model organisms and to determine the function of identified genes. Secondly, the results and findings of the research were challenging the foundational concepts of the gene and the genome causing researchers to re-think the nature, role and function of the genome in the broader context of biology (Keller, 2000). Thirdly at the national level, there was a recursive co-shaping dynamic between the promise of genomics discourse and the expanding diversity of policy actors who translated and reacted to the expectations of genomics story-lines and the broader vision of the future being framed by promise of genomics discourse, as well as the promise of science-infused policy discourse (Table 4.5). Finally, the transition of the promise of genomics discourse from the polis to the political arena in the second and third mandates triggered discursive shifts.

The promise of genomics discourse during the first mandate was heavily framed within the science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines, as the main audience was the Medical Research Council. The promise of genomics discourse attempted to reflect the broader promise of science economic policy discourse, but at the same time highlighted the discursive tension between basic research, which was how genomics was characterized, and applied research and innovation, which was emphasized in the promise of science policy discourse. During the second mandate the promise of genomics discourse entered the political arena with the Investing in Biotechnology Memorandum to Cabinet led by AAFC. The promise of genomics discourse continued to be debated in the polis within an expanding promise of genomics discourse-coalition. There was a discernable discursive re-framing that added applied research, applications and innovation to the vision of basic genome research of the first mandate. The science, and technology expectations of genomics story-lines envisioned advances in genomic science and technology as precursors to the critical socio-economic expectations; whereas during the first mandate, the science and technology expectations were ends unto themselves. The promise of genomics and the promise of Genome Canada became more closely articulated as

194

Genome Canada was promoted as the means by which the promise of genomics would be realized for the country. In all three mandates the promise of genomics was discursively positioned with the promise of biotechnology. During the second mandate government policy actors used the discursive over-determination of biotechnology to alleviate the uncertainty caused by the discursive under-determination of genomics to take tentative steps into the promise of genomics subject-position with a policy position meant to support genomics but discursively framed as biotechnology.

The hesitancy with which the government ‘stepped into’ the promise of genomics subject- position does not support the sociology of expectations of science and technology literature that characterizes policy makers as susceptible to promise of science discourses (Brown & Beynon- Jones, 2012; Cooper, 2013). Policy making under the influence of promissory scientific discourses, according to Brown & Beynon Jones (2012), is “characterized by the hastiness of political expediency, a prioritisation of the near-term future and a perceived need to react quickly to short-term putative. . .opportunities and expectations” (p. 224). Brown & Beynon-Jones (2012) argue that discourses of emerging science and technology are framed such that there is little opportunity to interrogate “the social assumptions and interests embedded within promissory constructions of the future” (p. 228) or to consider the potential risks as part of the policy process. By making a relatively minor and low risk decision to fund ‘biotechnology’ research in the federal science-based departments27, instead of opting for the full Genome Canada proposal ($300m over five years), the federal government does not appear to have acted “under a perceived policy need to react rapidly to often unchallenged claims about imminent benefit” (Brown & Beynon-Jones, 2012, p. 223). The on-going, almost intractable, opposition by the central agencies is further evidence that policy-makers did not defer “to technoscientific authority” (p. 238). Policy advisors in the central agencies challenged the argument that additional funding for genome research was necessary and that existing research policy mechanisms (e.g. the funding agencies) were not capable of effectively coordinating and managing Canada’s genome research efforts. Once those challenges had been overcome, the central agencies demanded unprecedented governance and accountability frameworks and a

27 The $55m for biotechnology research announced in the 1999 federal budget was for three years and allocated across six departments: NRC ($17m); AAFC ($17m); Health Canada ($10m); Environment Canada ($3m); Fisheries and Oceans ($2.5m) and Natural Resources Canada (Canadian Forestry Service) ($5m) (GV-ED-3).

195 funding agreement framed in legal discourse that was largely symbolic. The risks associated with genomics were not black boxed but were a crucial element of the promise of genomics discourse and the policy expectations of genomics story-line. By the third mandate, it was widely acknowledged that any proposal for a nationally funded and coordinated genome research program would have to include a program of GE3LS research and public outreach. My findings indicated that, rather than a “habitual deference to technoscientific stakeholders” (Brown & Beynon-Jones, 2012, p. 237) and an “institutionalised reflex blindness to longer term temporal frames of reference” (p. 238), policy-makers demonstrated a capacity for “more ‘reflexive’ as opposed to ‘reflex’ science policy” (Brown & Beynon-Jones, 2012, p. 223). Policy makers were able to discern that, while genome scientists envisioned a compelling future for genomics, they needed to better understand the policy implications before making significant changes to Canada’s research policy framework, which required the skills of knowledge brokers, who were brought into brief senior bureaucrats and politicians.

The promise of genomics discourse moved deeper into the political arena during the third mandate and became more focused. The promise of genomics vision of the future was incomplete during the second mandate with the performative element of the vision (Birch et al., 2014), the promise of Genome Canada, not sufficiently persuasive to catalyze a major transformation of Canada’s research policy framework. The discursive strategy of the third mandate was to articulate the promise of genomics/Genome Canada very tightly with the broader promise of science economic policy discourse to make a compelling argument about the need for such radical policy changes. The economy and organization expectations of genomics story-lines were dominant during the third mandate. The economy expectations of genomics story-line was largely defined by discourse that quantified the return on investment in Genome Canada and linked the future economic success of the biotechnology industry to immediate investments in genomics research. The organization expectations of genomics story-line adopted several themes that discursively positioned the promise of Genome Canada. Genome Canada and the genome centres would establish the necessary research infrastructure, which the existing granting councils were unable to provide. The organization expectations of genomics story-line envisioned Genome Canada as complementing and supporting the work of the granting councils and science-based departments and agencies through its coordinating role. As an arms-length, alternative delivery model, Genome Canada would provide a strong governance and accountability framework, ensuring that the public interest was protected. Overall, the

196 organization expectations of genomics story-line discursively framed Genome Canada as the means by which the risks to Canada highlighted in the promise of genomics vision would be mitigated.

The science, technology, policy and status expectations of genomics story-lines played more of a supporting role, re-enforcing the economy and organization expectations story-lines during the third mandate. The science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines articulated advances in basic and applied research and technology development directly to economic impacts. The policy expectations of genomics story-lines supported the vision of Genome Canada that had been framed in the organization expectations of genomics story-lines, envisioning the crucial impact Genome Canada would have in developing and coordinating a national genomics research strategy, supporting the implementation of the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy, informing and advising on the design of a regulatory framework and in advancing the GE3LS academic research and public outreach initiatives. The other expectations of genomics story-lines (society, culture, health, environment, training) were largely unchanged from the previous mandates and had a negligible role shaping policy choices, decisions and actions, but could be more salient in other fields of science or other research policy contexts.

Expectations of Genomics Story-lines as Knowledge ‘yet-to-be’

The expectations of genomics story-lines immingled expectations of advances in science and technology (‘knowledge-yet-to-be’) with expectations of socio-economic benefits (social values). The promise of genomics was framed as science by scientists, but it was actually trans- science (Weinberg, 1972), a policy issue framed in scientific discourse, but whose solution cannot be from derived empirical facts, but based on societal values. The promise of genomics discourse advocated for a political decision, a value judgement, but was discursively perceived as scientific knowledge or facts. The ‘knowledge’ in this case was the expectations of genomics story-lines, which were framed by genome scientists in scientific discourse crafted around the promise of genomics: the expectation of advances in genomics science and technology, which would have expansive socio-economic impacts for Canada. The sociology of expectations of science and technology literature has argued that there is little to distinguish the process of generating facts from the process of generating expectations with each operating similarly in the research process and with expectations having direct influence over how knowledge claims are eventually framed (Groves & Tutton, 2013; Selin, 2007). The literature has identified the

197 growing tendency for expectations of science and technology to supplant knowledge in emerging areas of science (Birch et al., 2014; Brown, 2005). I would argue, based on my findings, that expectations of genomics supplanted knowledge in promise of genomics discourse by functioning as scientific knowledge yet-to-be, allowing socio-economic expectations to carry the knowledge-based power of scientific discourses. Being discursively framed and perceived as scientific knowledge gave the promise of genomics discourse the legitimacy of scientific discourse and therefore the discursive knowledge-based power to shape the research policy decisions and choices by impelling policy actors to think in the future and act in the present.

Promise of Genomics Discourse and the Precautionary Principle

Promissory discourses, such as the promise of genomics discourse, are generally constructed with descriptive, normative and performative aspects (Birch et al., 2014) and are often framed within the two broad themes of decline and control (Stone, 2012), which imply some notion of risk, either the threat of increasing risk (decline) or the promise of mitigating risk (control). The promise of genomics discourse described the transformative opportunities of the genomics revolution for scientific, technological and socio-economic impacts. It framed the current state of genomics research funding in Canada as inadequate compared to other countries and the current capacity of existing funding mechanisms (e.g. federal research granting councils) as poorly positioned to respond to the new realities and challenges that genomics research represented. The normative aspect of the promise of genomics vision argued that Canada urgently needed increased levels of funding for genomics research in order to mitigate the risks to Canada’s economic and scientific future of missing out on the socio-economic benefits of the genomics revolution. Having described the problem and identified the appropriate response, the vision of the promise of genomics for Canada’s future further argued for a specific policy solution: a nationally funded and coordinated genomics research program based on an alternative delivery and governance model—Genome Canada, an arms-length, not-for-profit organization. Over the course of the three mandates the promise of genomics discourse focussed and refined the future vision to persuade policy actors, particularly policy-makers, that a significant shift in the institutional and policy frameworks that underpinned Canadian research coordination and funding was the only way that Canada would realize the promise of genomics. The descriptive element of the promise of genomics discourse framed the increasing risks to Canada of the lack of genomics research funding, while the normative and performative elements envisioned putting

198

Canada back in control of its destiny and mitigating the risks to its economic future and scientific reputation. The concept of risk framed in the promise of genomics discourse suggests that a form of precautionary principle, such as that used in making regulatory decisions in situations of scientific uncertainty, could be relevant for research policy decisions. Doern and others (2016) have noted the expanded interpretation and application of precautionary policy practices in Canada. Promissory discourses, such as expectations of science and technology, are characterized by uncertainty. There is the uncertainty inherent in scientific knowledge and the uncertainty of the future, which combined make the ex-ante causal link between science and socio-economic impacts tenuous at best, but the risks of missing out on those envisioned impacts warrant investments in promising, emerging fields of science. I argue that the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines functioned to elicit precautionary policy action mitigating the risks to Canada of missing the benefits promised by the genomics revolution.

Ideational Effects as a Precondition for Material Impacts.

The promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines had various ideational and material effects on the policy decisions and process that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. Ideational effects such as creating subject-positions, creating new meanings, altering cognitive patterns, creating new cognitions and positionings, shaping interests and priorities and the emergence of intersubjective cooperation were evident in my findings. Material effects included attracting and mobilizing funding, creating discourse-coalitions, coordinating activities, altering the scope and direction of research and transforming institutional and policy frameworks.

Epstein (2008) makes a compelling argument for the importance of the power of subject- positions constructed by discourse. Subject-positions are “produced by discourse” and “refer to a position within a discourse” (Epstein, 2008, p. 14). According to Epstein (2008), temporary (unfixed), discursive identities are produced when policy actors occupy a subject-position within a discourse. The subject-positions framed within the expectations of genomics story-lines gave policy actors a range of identities with which to shape their interests around the promise of genomics and the ways they thought about how genomics research should and could be funded and managed in Canada. The promise of genomics discourse constructed the ‘genomics nation’ subject-position predominantly through the status expectations of genomics story-line, which

199

Cabinet and ultimately the Finance Minister and Prime Minister occupied, thus discursively identifying Canada as a genomics nation. Subject-positions, or the process of occupying a subject-position, is a necessary precondition before policy actors can make decisions or take any kind of action (Epstein, 2008). My findings confirmed that ideational effects are a necessary precondition for material effects, suggesting a temporal-causal relationship between ideational and material effects of promise of genomics discourse. Material impacts of promise of genomics discourse are highly unlikely unless policy actors have cognitively accepted the ideas articulated in the discourse. The ideational-material effects relationship has implications for the sociology of expectations of science and technology literature, which I discuss in the implications section of this chapter.

Generative Power of Promise of Genomics Discourse.

Discursive power, according to Litfin (1994), operates through persuasion rather than control, domination or coercion. There is no indication in my findings that policy actors were coerced into accepting, supporting or advocating for the promise of genomics or Genome Canada. The generative power of the discourse in shaping policy actors’ interests, priorities and preferences was consistently demonstrated in my findings, from the MRC’s reconceptualization of its research funding mandate in the first mandate, to AAFC’s framing of its regulatory mission in the second mandate to the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Secretariat’s shift in the way it perceived its priorities for implementing the strategy during the third mandate. Powerful policy actors (individuals and organizations) in Canada’s research policy community could have successfully advocated for genome research policy exclusive to their own mandates or that put them in a position of controlling the Canadian genomics research program. Instead, they found compelling evidence in the expectations of the genomics story-lines to shape their interests and priorities through the promise of Genome Canada, a policy proposal that had been designed and promoted by academic researchers. The promise of genomics discourse possessed a generative power of persuasion that altered the ways that policy actors envisioned their interests, priorities and preferences, mobilized the promise of genomics discourse-coalition, coordinating the activities of diverse policy actors to advocate for a common vision, and transformed institutional and policy frameworks.

200

The Role of Discursive Agents – Scientists & Knowledge Brokers

While my thesis focuses on the power of discourse in shaping the research policy process, to exclude agents and agency from the process would produce an impoverished and inaccurate interpretation of the role of the promise of genomics discourse in shaping the events and decisions that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. Discourse is produced, disseminated, translated and acted upon by actors who are enabled and constrained by the discourse (Dryzek, 2013; Litfin, 1994). The relationship between the power of policy actors and the power of discourse is entangled and recursive (Epstein, 2008; Smith & Kern, 2009). Policy actors possess varying degrees of power that gives them influence to discursively shape the policy process, but only within certain boundaries delineated by discourse (Vignola-Gagné, 2014). Scientists, because of their socially and culturally derived authority, and knowledge- brokers, because of their discursive competence in mediating between scientific and political discourses, are particularly powerful discursive agents (Litfin, 1994). My findings showed that both Canadian genomics scientists and knowledge brokers had powerful, mediating roles as discursive agents with power to frame the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines and therefore shape the various policy choices, decisions and outcomes (Litfin, 1994). My findings further demonstrated that Canadian genomics scientists and knowledge brokers played distinctly different roles as discursive agents and that their persuasive power was effective at different points in the process.

Canadian genome scientists as interpreters of the reality of genomic science.

The discursive power of scientists derives from their role in the promise of science as agents involved a rigorous method of producing a reliable, credible body of knowledge that tells us something about the natural world, as well as their ability to make of sense and interpret the meaning of natural phenomena (Douglas, 2009; Kearnes &Wienroth, 2011; Litfin, 1994). Science is recognized for its success as the most reliable source of knowledge about the natural world, as such society affords the claims made by scientists with special authority (Douglas, 2009; Kearnes & Wienroth, 2011; Sarewitiz et al., 2004). Through the promise of science, scientists are afforded a certain level of authority and credibility as ‘interpreters of reality’ (Litfin, 1994). Scientific discourses and scientists are therefore powerful discursive forces that delineate the boundaries of legitimate, policy discourse, defining not only what can be said but in

201 many cases what can and cannot be thought (Litfin, 1994; Schyfter & Calvert, 2015). Scientists have long played an advisory role in the policy process and with the increasingly complex and technical nature of contemporary policy issues, scientists have become more integral to the policy process in ways beyond providing advice (Douglas, 2009). As producers of knowledge, scientists are often well-positioned to recognize potential policy issues and therefore instrumental in defining how problems are discursively framed and recommending policy options (Litfin, 1994). With access to specialized knowledge, scientists are uniquely positioned to bring issues into the broader policy discourse and onto the policy agenda (Douglas, 2009; Litfin, 1994).

Canadian genomics scientists were internationally recognized leaders in the field. Several had been directly involved in ground-breaking discoveries. In understanding genomic science, they could legitimately describe the magnitude of the discoveries and the broader implications for biological research. Furthermore, having been actively involved in establishing the international genomics research coordinating body—Human Genome Organization (HUGO) and collaborating on international genomics research teams, Canadian genomics researchers were aware of the policy decisions being made in other countries to invest substantially in genomics through novel policy frameworks. Canadian genomics researchers were facing potential exclusion from international genomics research collaborations due to the lack of genomics funding in Canada. They were aware of implied threats being made about countries who did not contribute to the international genomics research efforts at perceived nationally appropriate levels. Canadian genomics researchers were therefore uniquely positioned to interpret the reality of genome science and to infer the opportunities and threats to Canada. Their direct involvement with genomics research gave them limited authority to make inferences about what knowledge might be produced and what technology might be developed in the future based on the progress of the international genome research efforts. They also had some authority, given their direct experience with existing Canadian and international policy frameworks for funding genomics research, to recommend a policy option for Canada. My findings showed that Canadian genomics scientists (GTF members) initiated, produced and disseminated the promise of genomics discourse, largely within the polis; they had relatively limited influence within the political arena. The genomics scientists were successful in discursively framing the lack of genomics funding in Canada as a research policy priority, garnering support for a radical transformation of existing policy frameworks from a diverse range of policy actors in academia,

202 government and industry within a promise of genomics discourse-coalition. While they were regarded by policy advisors and policy-makers within the federal government as brilliant scientists, their discursive competence and authority did not extend into the political arena, where the links between the promise of genomics and broader policy priorities were evinced and the terms and conditions of the proposed policy solutions were negotiated. The political arena was the domain of another powerful discursive agent—knowledge brokers.

Knowledge brokers as translators of the policy promise of genomics.

Knowledge brokers play a crucial role in the policy process as mediators between scientists as producers of knowledge and policy makers as users of the knowledge (Michaels, 2009; Nutley et al., 2007). With the reliance on scientific knowledge to inform policy decisions and choices and the complex multi-discursive nature of contemporary policy issues; the need for policy actors with specialized abilities to understand scientific discourse, identify the relevant links to broader policy discourses, and frame credible, relevant policy options and choices that reflect both scientific and policy discourses, gives knowledge brokers substantial political power to shape the policy process (Dryzek, 2013; Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994). Like scientists and other discursive agents, knowledge brokers are constrained by the generative power of discourse. Their powers of persuasion are limited by the discursive boundaries established by both scientific and political discourses.

Knowledge brokers were largely unnecessary during the first mandate, as the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines were framed for an academic and scientific audience in terms dominated by the science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines. In the transition of the promise of genomics discourse to the political arena during the second mandate, policy advisors recognized the need for the promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines to be translated and framed in the context of existing broader policy discourse “in a way that allowed for consideration and decision-making by Ministers, to market those proposals within government, to win support against competing demands” (Nymark, 2001, p. 6). While recognizing genomics as a transformative science based on the authority of Canadian genomics scientists, policy makers were unable to make sense of the broader policy implications of the promise of genomics. A direct link between advances in genomics science and policy-relevant socio-economic impacts was not explicitly delineated. The promise of genomics discourse represented “a truly academic approach”, but “did not appeal to

203 government decision-makers” as it was “based on a scientific rationale and did not deal with important issues for government such as governance”, but “was a compelling vision” and offered a creative approach that was missing from similar policy discussions (Nymark, 2001, p. 5). Knowledge-brokers were perceived as necessary to bridge the disconnect by acting as intermediaries between the genome scientists, who saw the promise of genomics as self-evident, and government policy actors (policy advisors and policy makers) (Michaels, 2009). The power of knowledge brokers was constrained by their limited ability to frame the links between promise of genomics discourse and the broader policy priorities during the second mandate because of the under-determination of genomics (Epstein, 2008).

During the third mandate, the role of knowledge brokers became more focused and defined around the promise of Genome Canada. Professional lobbyists (former senior bureaucrats) were hired as formal knowledge brokers to brief Deputy Ministers and Ministers. Policy advisors within the science-based departments and agencies acted as knowledge brokers for policy colleagues in the central agencies, who struggled with understanding the science, failed to discern the link to economic benefits for the country and perceived the promise of Genome Canada as a threat to the public interest. A pivotal briefing for the Deputy Minister of Finance demonstrated the power of knowledge brokers in translating the promise of genomics discourse such that the Deputy Minister came to occupy the promise of genomics subject-position by reconceptualizing the promise of genomics for Canada through his personal experience, persuading him to advise the Finance Minister that a significant transformation of Canada research policy framework was necessary to ensure Canada’s economic future.

The role of knowledge brokers in the case of Genome Canada was somewhat different from the traditional conception in the literature, which is defined as intermediaries in an interactive process of encouraging policy makers to make use of scientific knowledge and encouraging researchers to produce policy-relevant scientific knowledge (Michaels, 2009). In the case of Genome Canada, the role of knowledge brokers was to persuade policy-makers of the need for a radical transformation of existing policy frameworks by translating and framing the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines into policy relevant language accessible to policy-makers. In particular, the knowledge brokers discursively framed the socio- economic expectations of genomics story-lines within existing policy priorities and objectives, such as the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy.

204

Policy Context: A Unique Moment in Canadian Politics

The timeframe of my study (1997-2000) was a unique economic and fiscal period in Canadian politics. It was characterized by unprecedented economic growth and equally unprecedented federal budget surpluses. Policy discourse, particularly economic policy discourse, was framed around the promise of science for Canada’s future economic competitiveness and social well- being. The policy priority placed on science, research and innovation can be seen in the promise of science-infused policy discourse articulated through key policy-setting practices (e.g. Speeches from the Throne, Budget Speeches) and the historic investments in science and research. Moreover, the federal government had demonstrated a willingness to ‘experiment’ with alternative policy models for research coordination and funding with the creation of the Canada Foundation of Innovation, Canada Research Chairs and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The budget surpluses, openness to policy experimentation and the overwhelming emphasis on the promise of science for Canada’s economic future created a unique policy context that was conducive to a transformative policy proposal. The broader policy context represented a unique moment in Canadian politics, that was not only amenable to the transformative promise of genomics/Genome Canada policy proposal, but also various other policy decisions related to genomics research funding by the granting councils, federal science- based departments and agencies and provincial governments. Both the discursive policy analysis and sociology of expectations of science and technology literatures have identified the interdependent interplay between political/historical contexts and discourse and expectations, with each being affected by the other (Cooper, 2013; Dryzek, 2013; Epstein, 2008; McKean, 2013; Schyfter & Calvert, 2015).

In considering the policy context, there are two aspects that could be considered salient by their absence: the media and counter-narratives. My data corpus includes a separate category of media data items, which provided valuable evidence for constructing the policy discourse, promise of genomics discourse, the expectations of genomics story-lines and the chronology of events over the three years. The media, however, did not play a prominent role in creating pathways for the discourse to be taken up in the political process. There was extensive media coverage of the progress of the international human genome program, which captured the attention and imagination of the developed world, especially the dramatic race between a private research laboratory and a government laboratory in the United States to sequence the complete human

205 genome. Senior government bureaucrats and politicians would have been aware of the media coverage of genomics, giving them a basic understanding of the science and its socio-economic promise. More importantly, the media coverage would have signaled to politicians that genomics was current and topical and thus a candidate for consideration in policy priority setting (Nymark, 2001). Yet, there is no evidence that the media played a direct instrumental role in the policy process leading to the creation of Genome Canada. There were no references to media in data items such as meeting notes or strategy documents and interviewees made no mention of the role of the media in influencing the policy process. The GTF did not ‘use’ the media as part of its strategy for persuading politicians of the need for a nationally coordinated and funded genomics research program to realize the promise of genomics for the country’s socio-economic future well-being. There was limited media coverage of the activities of the GTF over the three years, mostly in specialized publications such as Research Money and Science.

Similarly, counter-narratives did not have a prominent role in influencing decision-making. There was neither a strongly competing other promising science nor an effective challenge to the promise of genomics. The other major S&T proposal under consideration at the time was the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, which represented the dramatic re-structuring of the Medical Research Council. Since both proposals (Genome Canada and CIHR) were led by the MRC and championed by the President, Dr. Friesen, there was a concerted strategy that framed the two initiatives as distinct, yet complimentary and synergistic. Unlike earlier attempts to secure funding for genomics research, there were no counter-narratives describing the risks of genomics and calling on the government to exercise restraint in its acceptance of the promise of genomics. As described in Chapter 4, during the third mandate there were weak and largely ineffective counter-narratives that challenged the promise of Genome Canada as the best approach for realizing the promise of genomics.

Conclusions

Based on my key findings and the theoretical foundations described in Chapter 2, I posit the following conclusions to address my research question: how did expectations of genomics, as promise of genomics discourse, shape the creation of Genome Canada?

The policy process, decisions and choices culminating in the creation of Genome Canada were shaped by a powerful promise of genomics discourse that was characterized and defined by a

206 diverse array of expectations of genomics story-lines, which exhibited distinct discursive patterns and evolution over the three mandates from 1997-2000. The promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines functioned in a complex interplay of discursive practices and dynamics among diverse policy actors within a promise of genomics discourse-coalition to produce a range of ideational and material impacts. The promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines exhibited what Litfin (1994) called a generative, knowledge-based discursive power that was persuasive and capacity-giving and enabled intersubjective cooperation among diverse policy actors, who united within the promise of genomics discourse-coalition to support and advocate for Genome Canada as the only policy option for realizing the socio-economic benefits envisioned through the promise of genomics. The promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines constructed a vision of the future that placed Canada at risk of losing out on the socio-economic benefits promised by the genomics revolution unless there were significant changes made to existing institutional and policy frameworks. Specifically, only a major investment in a new, arms-length organization—Genome Canada—would mitigate the risks Canada was facing due to its lack of funding for genomics research. In the context of risk, the promise of science discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines functioned to elicit precautionary policy action. In spite of the under-determination of genomics and the uncertainty of realizing the socio-economic impacts envisioned from genomics, investing in genomics research was warranted to mitigate the risks of missing out on the genomics revolution. Canada could not afford not to invest in genomics—the costs and consequences of not investing in genomics would be greater than the investment.

The promise of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-lines produced powerful promise of genomics subject-positions from which policy actors perceived their interests, discursive identities and preferences and gained agency. The promise of genomics subject-position was a powerful ideational effect of the promise of genomics discourse in two ways. First, by taking up or occupying the promise of genomics subject-position, policy actors became identified as supporters and advocates of the promise of genomics and the promise of Genome Canada. The promise of genomics subject-position operated at multiple scales: individual, organizational and national. At the individual level, occupying the promise of genomics subject-position allowed policy actors to reconceptualize their interests, recognize new opportunities or envision new ways of thinking about how genomics research could be funded and coordinated. Occupying the promise of genomics subject-position at the organizational level

207

(e.g. federal science-based departments and agencies such as the granting councils or Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), allowed policy actors to shape their organizational mandates, goals and prioritizes within the context of the promise of genomics. Occupying the promise of genomics subject-position at a national level identified Canada, both domestically and internationally, as a promise of genomics nation, which was envisioned largely through the status expectations of genomics story-line to have prestige and notoriety. At the organizational and national level, adopting the promise of genomics subject-position was the equivalent of taking a policy position. In addition to constituting the discursive identities, interests, priorities and mandates of policy actors at the individual, organizational and national level, occupying the promise of genomics subject-position was a necessary pre-condition for action and policy making. The promise of genomics subject-positions functioned to define the means of policy actors’ agency, the ways in which they could shape the institutional and policy frameworks of Canada’s research system. Without adopting a promise of genomics subject-position, policy actors did not possess the agency for making policy decisions. For example, if the MRC had not occupied the promise of genomics subject-position through the science and technology expectations of genomics story- lines during the first mandate, it would not have reconceptualized its ideas about funding genome research and would not have transformed its institutional framework and altered the direction of Canadian health research by introducing the new Genome Research Program. Epstein (2008) describes the process of ‘stepping into’ subject-positions as a source of agency that produces policy actors as agents with the capacity to “engage in the realm of action by first stepping into subject-positions” (p. 249). My findings are consistent with Epstein’s (2008) conclusion: occupying the promise of genomics subject-position was a pre-condition for making genomics research policy decisions. Material impacts such as mobilizing funding, coordinating activities, or transforming policy frameworks could not have occurred unless policy actors occupied the promise of genomics subject-position by discursively associating with the promise of genomics discourse through any of the expectations of genomics story-lines. The promise of genomics subject-positions provided policy actors with agency from which they made policy decisions. In terms of my research question, the subject-position-agency dynamic and ideational-material dynamic suggest potential mechanisms by which the promise of genomics discourse and expectations of genomics story-lines shaped the policy choices, decisions and processes over the three-year policy process.

208

The expectations of genomics story-lines functioned to simplify the complex and underdetermined promise of genomics discourse, giving policy actors multiple ways to make sense of and interpret the promise of genomics and the promise of Genome Canada. The expectations of genomics story-lines appealed to the heterogeneous interests of policy actors representing industry, academia and government. Through this diversity, the expectations of genomics story-lines established a promise of genomics discourse-coalition where the dynamics of intersubjective cooperation took hold. With a diverse group of policy actors uniting around the promise of genomics discourse it gained significant persuasive power. The power of the promise of genomics discourse was rooted in the intersubjective cooperation generated within the promise of genomics discourse-coalition through the diversity of the expectations of genomics story-lines. Through the expectations of genomics story-lines, the promise of genomics was variously interpreted, having a slightly different meaning for each policy actor, but the broader promise of genomics discourse remained a coherent idea—a social vision of Canada’s future that all policy actors supported. The intersubjective cooperation generated by the expectations of genomics story-lines was an important dynamic of the promise of genomics discourse in shaping the policy choices, decisions and processes over the three mandates.

The knowledge-based discursive power of the promise of genomics discourse was key to how policy choices, decisions and processes were shaped over the three mandates. Having been produced by genome scientists, the promise of genomics discourse was framed in scientific discourse, resembling actual knowledge claims, but were actually knowledge yet to be— hypotheses about what knowledge might be gained from future genomics research. With the predominance of the science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines, the broader promise of genomics discourse (including the socio-economic expectations of genomics story- lines) was imbued with the epistemological authority and power of scientific knowledge claims. This finding is consistent with findings in the discursive policy literature (Litfin, 1994) and the argument in the sociology of expectations of science and technology literature that discursively there is little to distinguish between the power of expectations of science and technology and scientific knowledge claims (Brown et al., 2003; Selin, 2007). As the promise of genomics discourse transitioned from the polis into the political arena, the socio-economic expectations of genomics story-lines were more salient than the science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines in translating the promise of genomics discourse into policy-relevant language accessible to policy makers. While the science and technology expectations of

209 genomics story-lines represented a compelling vision of the future, genome science was a mystery to policy makers and the causal link to policy priorities was uncertain and tenuous. Discursively, the direct causal link between the socio-economic expectations of genomics story- lines and the broader policy priorities of the promise of science economic policy discourse was more plausible and relevant to policy actors. The science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines were necessary for giving the promise of genomics discourse its knowledge-based power, but not sufficient to compel policy makers to agree to a radical transformation of research policy frameworks. The sociology of expectations of science and technology literature has reported a similar dynamic between science and technology expectations and socio-economic expectations (Birch et al., 2014).

Two types of discursive agents played instrumental roles in the dynamics of the promise of genomics discourse. Both genome scientists and knowledge-brokers had delimited power as discursive agents to shape policy outcomes. The distinction in the roles between the genome scientists and the knowledge brokers highlights another powerful dynamic of the promise of genomics discourse in shaping the policy choices and decisions. There were differences in dynamics of the promise of genomics discourse between the polis (public forum) and the political arena (Braun, 1999). The genome scientists (GTF members) produced and disseminated the promise of genomics discourse over the three mandates. As scientists, they carried social authority and legitimacy as ‘interpreters of reality’ (Litfin, 1994) and were empowered to discursively envision a future reality of genomics research for Canada. However, their discursive power was largely effective in the polis, where “actors are engaged in processes of argumentation and deliberation to convince other political actors of the plausibility and legitimacy of their ideas” (Braun, 1999, p. 24) in the public interest. The genome scientists were powerful discursive agents in the polis, where they advocated a promise of genomics vision of the future for Canada that they believed was in the best interests of the country. The discursive power of the genome scientists in the political arena, where the internal negotiations with policy makers and policy bureaucrats took place (Braun, 1999), was limited. The genome scientists had relatively little direct contact or influence with policy advisors and policy makers in the context of what several interviewees and Ms Nymark (2001) called the ‘machinery of government’.

Knowledge brokers played a key role in shaping the policy process, choices and decisions that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. Their discursive power was largely effective in

210 the political arena; they had little involvement in the polis. For example, during the first mandate knowledge brokers were not necessary as the promise of genomics discourse was targeted mostly to scientists and academics, who were quite comfortable with the predominantly scientific framing of the promise of genomics discourse. During the second mandate, the knowledge brokers struggled with the complexity and under-determination of genome science. In order to make sense of the promise of genomics discourse within the context of the broader promise of science economic policy discourse, knowledge brokers discursively framed the promise of genomics within the context of biotechnology, a distinctly relevant policy priority that policy makers could easily make sense of. The complexity of genomics science continued to be a strong source of uncertainty in the political arena during the third mandate. The multi-discursive nature of the promise of genomics discourse made it difficult for policy actors in the central agencies and policy makers (politicians) to fully comprehend the problem, the risks and opportunities and the solution being advocated by the genome scientists through the promise of genomics and promise of Genome Canada discourse. While senior bureaucrats (e.g. Kevin Lynch) and politicians (e.g. Minister of Finance, Paul Martin) recognized that genomics represented something important, they were unable to envision the direct causal link between the promise of genomics discourse being advocated by the genome scientists and the policy priorities of their promise of science economy discourse and therefore enlisted the help of knowledge brokers (e.g. Harry Swain, Dr. Friesen). The key role of the knowledge brokers was to translate and interpret the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse in such way that Genome Canada was perceived as the only policy response to the promise of genomics that Canada was at risk of missing.

Senior bureaucrats and Cabinet Ministers claimed not to understand what the scientists were telling them about the potential for genomics and therefore needed someone to explain the science in simpler terms. Knowledge brokers were brought in to brief senior bureaucrats and cabinet ministers. The knowledge brokers did not explain the science as much as simplify the link between genomics science and socio-economic impacts. The genome scientists had discursively constructed a complex, non-linear, highly uncertain, contingent relationship between genomics research, its uses and its socio-economic impacts. The policy decision-makers needed something simpler; they needed a direct link between genomics research and socio-economic benefits before being able to make research policy decisions about genomics. Despite the complex models that have been proposed for explaining, predicting and engineering the

211 interactions between science and society, the policy decision-makers sought out a simple, linear understanding for reconciling the promise of genomics with genomics research and broader socio-economic policy priorities, regardless of the accuracy or veracity of that link; it just had to make sense or sound right (Hajer, 1995). At a higher level of abstraction, the promise of science for socio-economic benefits was already widely accepted, as articulated in the broader policy discourse that framed a linear, deterministic relationship between science and societal impacts. In order to support the Genome Canada proposal, policy decision-makers needed to envision that relationship specifically for genomics research. While research, its use and its impacts may interact in a complex interplay that is highly uncertain and contingent, it appears that research policy decisions may be informed by a simpler, linear, deterministic understanding of that reality.

The broader policy context of the time period was crucial to understanding the dynamics of the promise of genomics discourse and its power to transform institutional and policy frameworks (Dryzek, 2013; Lave, 2014; McKean, 2013; Vignola-Gagné, 2014). The dominant promise of science economic policy discourse established the boundaries within which any other promise of science discourse seeking to shape institutional and policy frameworks had to be situated. The budget surpluses, openness to research policy experimentation and the overwhelming emphasis on the promise of science for Canada’s economic future created a unique policy context that was responsive to the promise of genomics/Genome Canada discourse advocating a radical transformation of institutional and policy frameworks.

In summary, as discourse, the promise of genomics fulfilled a central and essential role in shaping the policy choices and decisions of the process that extended over the three mandates, from 1997 – 2000, culminating in the creation of Genome Canada with the decision by the federal government to invest $160m over three years. The promise of genomics discourse was powerful in persuading policy actors to reconceptualize their interests, discursive identities and priorities in the context of the promise of genomics and the promise of Genome Canada, which led to various material impacts, including the transformation of Canada’s research policy framework. The promise of genomics discourse was defined by a diverse array of expectations of genomics story-lines, which were generative in several ways. First, the expectations of genomics story-lines established the scale and scope of the promise of genomics discourse, enabling what could be imagined for Canada’s future and constraining the policy options available for realizing

212 the future. The expectations story-lines produced multiple ways through which the promise of genomics could be interpreted by policy actors, generating intersubjective cooperation that allowed diverse policy actors to unite within a powerful promise of genomics discourse-coalition advocating for a single policy option. The expectations of genomics story-lines produced promise of genomics subject-positions, from which policy actors perceived their interests, discursive identities and preferences and subsequently gained agency to act. Being framed initially within the science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines imbued the promise of genomics discourse with knowledge-based power, giving it the epistemological authority of scientific knowledge-yet-to-be. However, the science and technology expectations of genomics story-line were not sufficiently persuasive; the socio-economic expectations of genomics story-lines were necessary for making the direct causal link to the policy priorities of the promise of science economic discourse. The promise of genomics discourse functioned as a discourse of precautionary action for mitigating the risks threatening Canada due to the underfunding of genomics research. As discursive agents, the genome scientists were most effective in the polis advocating for the promise of genomics/Genome Canada in the public interest. The power of knowledge brokers was centred in the political arena, the machinery of government, where policy choices were negotiated in the context of political priorities, accountability and coordination.

By applying a discursive lens to the promise of genomics, a complex interplay among discursive elements, discursive practices, discursive agents and discursive dynamics is implicated in shaping the policy choices, decisions and processes that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. My case study of the research policy process that led to the creation of Genome Canada provides an empirical assessment of how promise of genomics discourse was implicated in the transformation of Canada’s research institutional and policy frameworks.

While not within the scope of my thesis, it is worthwhile to reflect on the extent to which genomics has fulfilled its promise over the past 20 years within the context of broader Canadian policy priorities, such as economic and health transformations, that it was meant to address. Within this context, today, the promise of genomics largely remains a promise. There has been limited impacts on the Canadian economy from genomics research nor has there been dramatic advances in medicine or healthcare based on genome science and technology. There have been incremental advances, but overall the socio-economic impacts of genomics have been

213 disappointing. From the perspective of scientific and technological advances, genomics has exceeded our expectations. More importantly, I agree with Keller’s (2000) assessment that “what is so impressive. . .is not so much the ways in which the genome project has fulfilled our expectations but the ways in which it has transformed them” (p. 5). Progress in genomics has radically altered the way that scientists think about the basic process of life and challenged long- held theories of the gene and the genome (Keller 2000). In the context of research policy, what the story of Genome Canada teaches us about promising science is that expectations of science are not as easily converted into socio-economic impacts and benefits as we expect. As was clearly evident with genome science, promising science holds many unknowns that serve to radically alter our initial expectations, including but certainly not limited to: our simplistic, linear notions of the causal link between science and socio-economic impact, our unrealistic timelines and our underestimation of the complexity of the systems we are not only attempting to understand but to manipulate. What I find more concerning than the apparent failure of genomics to fulfill its promise are the on-going claims of geno-hype that fail to grasp the reality of this complexity. What I see is a flaw in our expectations rather than a failure of science to fulfill its promise.

Implications for Higher Education, Future Scholarship and Research Policy

In this final section, I reflect on the implications of my findings and conclusions for future scholarship and the argument that I introduced in Chapter 1 about the unexamined role of the promise of science in shaping research policy decisions in light of growing concerns over the putative link between science and societal benefit which underpins research policy. The overarching purpose of my thesis was to subject the promise of genomics to an in-depth discursive analysis with the goal of gaining an appreciation and understanding of the promise of genomics discourse and its ideational and material effects in shaping the policy process that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. I posed the question: how did expectations of genomics, as promise of genomics discourse, shape the creation of Genome Canada? My findings and conclusions suggest that the promise of genomics, as a promise of science discourse, fulfilled a key role in the research policy process and in shaping the interests, discursive identities and agency of policy actors through a complex interplay among discursive

214 elements, discursive practices, discursive agents and discursive dynamics that led to material effects that permanently transformed Canada’s research system.

In Chapter 2 (p. 37) in reflecting on the limitations of discursive policy analysis, I discussed the potential risk of discursive approaches in reducing policy and the policy process to the ideational or epiphenomenal; that is of denying the reality or materiality of the policy issues and policy decisions. In reflecting on my findings and conclusions, there is another element of my adoption of discourse analysis that needs to be acknowledged. As part of the ‘ideational turn’ in policy studies (Braun, 1999), discourse analysis adds an important and compelling dimension to understanding, making sense of and explaining policy and the policy process. Discourse is only one of several entry points into ideational analysis and ideational arguments (Schmidt, 2010). Parsons (2007) offers a simple but elegant typology of the “logics of explanation” (p.3) that includes structural, institutional, ideational and psychological-based arguments for explaining why and how certain policy decisions and outcomes occur. It is generally agreed by scholars of discourse analysis that all of these ‘explanations’ co-exist in contingent interdependence with each shaping policy outcomes to varying degrees (Dryzek, 2013; Epstein, 2009; Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994). While my thesis focuses on discourse as an ideational explanatory logic for how the promise of genomics shaped the research policy process that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada, I do not assert that it is the only means by which we can make sense of this important Canadian science policy. The empirical data and analysis presented in my thesis offer an ideational argument to be set alongside other explanatory arguments (structural, institutional, psychological) that build an empirically robust understanding of the role of the promise of science in shaping research policy.

Theses, by their very nature, are limited in scope through epistemological, theoretical, methodological and analytical choices, made largely but not exclusively, at the beginning of the research process. These choices establish boundaries and parameters that define a manageable, coherent research project that can be completed in the typical timeframes of a doctoral program. Inevitably, over the course of the research process new ideas and intriguing questions emerge and compelling approaches and analytical methods are encountered that must be resisted and put aside in order to maintain the original scope and boundaries and complete the thesis in a timely manner. Reflecting on these abandoned opportunities at the end of the process is a way of preserving them so that they may at some point in the future inspire further research. There are

215 two abandoned opportunities that I would like to preserve. The first is methodological— specifically alternative ways of presenting my qualitative data beyond textual and tabular. I would have liked to have explored and experimented with visual approaches for depicting relationships and patterns of my data, such as mapping the discursive shifts in the policy discourse, promises of genomics discourse and the expectations of genomics story-line across the three mandates or illustrating the alignment between the policy discourse and the promise of genomics discourse.

I did ‘experiment’ with a simple visualization technique in the early stages of my analysis to identify the temporal patterns of the expectations of genomics story-lines over the three mandates. The analysis generated a bar chart illustrating the prominence of each story-line in each mandate based on the percentage of total references coded to each story-line (Figure C-1, Appendix C). While the graph allowed me to ‘see’ an evolving story of the promise of genomics discourse over the three mandate and to identify the dominant expectations of genomics story- lines, as well as ‘significant’ discursive shifts within and between the story-lines, I was uncomfortable using a quantitative approach to analyze my qualitative data. In fact, many of the more common qualitative forms of data visualization, such as word clouds, word trees and cluster analyses are based on quantitative analysis, particularly the frequency of single words, and statistical methods, which I find problematic for two reasons. First, it simply converts qualitative data to quantitative data, which is a questionable process given the interpretive and subjective nature of coding and the lack of a proper ‘statistical research design’. Second, given that it is often chains of multiple words or recurring phrases that are representative of discursive patterns or relationships, analyses based on the frequency of single words do not accurately represent the data. The types of visualization that I would have liked to explore are graphical or diagrammatical representations that visually captured the patterns and relationships that are textually described in this chapter. Such forms of visualization of qualitative data are an underutilized element of qualitative research despite the general trend towards more visual forms of communication and the potential for improving the quality and effectiveness of qualitative research (Sloan, 2009; Verdinelli & Scognoli, 2013).

The second abandoned opportunity is empirical: including additional data, specifically the scientific discourse related to genomics research. I would have liked to include an analysis of the scientific discourse within the international genomics research community to explore how the

216 scientific discourse was adapting to the unexpected outcomes of genomics research and how this shaped the promise of genomics discourse. The original conceptualizations of the gene and genome, as well as the function of genome in providing not only “a blue-print, but a coordination program of protein synthesis and the means of controlling its execution” (Jacob & Monod, 1961, p. 354) were being challenged by the magnitude of the complexity of the genome that was emerging from this early research (Keller, 2000). The concepts of ‘gene’, ‘genetic’ and ‘genome’ were becoming more and more difficult to sustain with the increasingly diverse uses and applications of the concepts (Keller, 2000). Keller (2000) offers an early perspective of such a discourse analysis by mapping out how genomics discourse has “affected the course of biological research. . .by shaping the biological landscape of the scientists doing that work” (p. 139). Interestingly, Keller highlights the function of genomics discourse as a rhetorical tool for persuasion. I believe an in-depth analysis of the scientific discourse of genomics would have offered fascinating insights of the evolution of the nascent science as it came to terms with the realities of the original naïve understandings of the genome and its functions. Moreover, an understanding the genome scientific discourse could have provided additional insights that may have improved my interpretation of the promise of genomics discourse and its role in shaping the various research policy decisions reported in my findings.

Implications for Higher Education

There are two major themes for the implications to higher education that emerge from my thesis: (1) the historic and on-going central role of universities in the development and evolution of Canadian research policy and 2) the complex tripartite relationship among universities, promise of science discourse and research policy, neither of which have received much attention in the higher education literature. While the two themes are closely related and overlap somewhat, there is sufficient distinction and salience to warrant a separate discussion of each. My inferences about each of the themes are based on the findings reported in this thesis and the historical background analyses that, while not directly reported in my thesis, certainly informed and guided my analyses.

The central role of the universities in the development and evolution of Canadian research policy is largely missing from the higher education literature and represents an alternative perspective on the history of Canadian research policy. This role is different than the function of the universities as one of the three key R&D performing sectors in Canada’s research enterprise,

217 which I will address in the second theme. The role that I wish to emphasize in the first theme is that as primary ‘architect’ of Canadian research policy. The universities have played an instrumental role in developing and directing Canadian research policy since the time of its origins at the turn of the 20th century. The NRC, Canada’s first organization with a research policy mandate, was led by senior university administrators during its initial formation (Eggleston, 1978; Thistle, 1966). It would not be an overstatement to claim that virtually all of the decisions made during the origins era of Canadian research policy were directly or indirectly made by the universities.28 The lack of recognition of universities as the ‘progenitors’ of Canadian research policy is a gap in the Canadian research policy literature that warrants closer attention.

Genome Canada was widely considered to be “a new governance model for delivery of research and development" in Canada (Nymark, 2001, p. 2). Research has been one of the primary missions of universities for more than 60 years. In fact, the NRC recognized the crucial role for universities in building research capacity in Canada as early as 1917 (NRC, 1959; Thistle, 1966). As key players in the research process, universities have a profound influence on research policy decisions and outcomes, through the promise of science discourses that they produce, disseminate and sustain. As was demonstrated in my findings, research policy decisions directly affect universities and the promise of science discourse that becomes embedded/embodied in research policy can have a profound effect on universities. Policy decisions responding to the promise of genomics discourse, such as the MRC’s unprecedented decision to allocate $25m over five years for genomics research through new programs with new evaluation criteria directly impacted the universities and created intended as well as unintended consequences for higher education. Genome Canada represented a significant shift in research policy, permanently changing the research system by introducing a new entity to the system, an unprecedented funding model and new requirements for matching funding. The nature of the impact and the legacy of the decision on Canadian universities remains unexplored.

28 My historical background analysis identified three eras of Canadian science: The origins (1900 – 1960); Institutionalization/Professionalization (1960 – 1996); Policy Experimentation (1996-present).

218

Over the past century Canadian universities have played an increasingly central role in meeting the priorities and expectations of national research policies (Gläser and Laudel, 2016; Jung and Lee, 2014). The role of universities and the relationships with other stakeholders in the Canadian research system, which has been discursively conceptualized as a national innovation system (Dill and van Vught, 2010), has evolved over the past 40 years reflecting the evolution of promise of science discourse that has underpinned research policy. Universities are shaped by and shape research policy. As the primary R&D performing sector (Kinder & Welsh, 2012), universities are profoundly impacted by research policy decisions. As key policy actors in the national innovation system, universities have a significant role in shaping research policy. The promise of genomics discourse was largely constructed and promoted by academic researchers, who advocated for an alternative model of research funding that reflected the different type of research that genomics represented. They framed the policy issue and set out the parameters and criteria for the policy that would address the issue. On the other hand, the universities had to adapt to the policy decisions being made in response to the promise of genomics discourse.

My thesis highlights the role that universities as institutions and academic researchers as individuals representing universities played in the research policy process that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. It also highlights the ways that higher education was impacted and shaped by promise of genomics discourse, suggesting that broader promise of science discourses could be at play in shaping research policy more broadly and therefore shaping higher education in unknown ways. My findings point to the need for future higher education research to understand more fully (1) the impact on higher education of promise of science discourses in shaping research policy, (2) the evolving role of higher education as envisioned through the promise science discourse embedded in research policy, (3) the role of higher education in producing and framing promise of science discourse, (4) the impact of promise of science discourse on university strategic research plans and the ways that universities manage and administer research.

Implications for Future Scholarship

My findings and conclusions have several implications for future scholarship. First, my thesis is original in both its approach and resulting output. It offers a unique interpretation of a discreet, bounded research policy process. Applying concepts from discursive policy analysis and the sociology of expectations of science and technology literatures in the analysis of the three-year

219 policy process that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada provides a foundation—a body of work—with which other scholars can engage. It contributes both new empirical data and a novel theoretical position through which to further consider research policy, the research policy process and the underpinning assumptions of science in serving society. The empirical data (to the best of my knowledge) represent the first detailed, historical, discursive analysis of contemporary Canadian genomics research policy. While my thesis focused on a specific case of the promise of science (genomics) and a specific, bounded research policy process (Genome Canada), the combination of discursive policy analysis and sociology of expectations of science and technology has the potential for broader applicability in exploring the dynamics of promissory discourses in other fields of science (e.g. nanotechnology) and for the analysis other research policy processes. Several concepts not normally associated with conceptualizations of research policy and the research policy process were shown to be functionally influential in the dynamics of promise of science discourse in shaping research policy and warrant further study. Concepts such as subject-positions, story-lines, discourse-coalitions, discursive knowledge-based power and intersubjectivity were useful to my interpretive analysis of the policy decisions, choices and outcomes over the three mandates. The discursive relationships such as the temporal ideational-material impacts dynamic, the relationship between the science and technology expectations of genomics story-lines and socio-economic story-lines and the polis-political arena relationship offer preliminary insights on potential mechanisms for understanding how the promise of science shapes the research policy process and the roles of discursive agents in the research policy process. These concepts and relationships represent a preliminary understanding and explanation of the role of the promise of science in the research policy process that has relevance to scholars in the sociology of expectations of science and technology, discursive policy analysis and research policy and to the diverse range of policy actors involved in research policy, including government policy advisors and policy makers, research funders, research organizations, researchers and intermediary or boundary organizations.

While not directly analyzed in my thesis, there is evidence that the expectations of genomics story-lines would be represented in the broader promise of science discourse that characterized the economic policy discourse. The expectations of genomics story-lines were linked very closely to and were responsive to the broader promise of science economic policy discourse, often drawing on key discursive themes such as the knowledge-based economy, innovation, productivity basic and applied research and commercialization. It is likely that the expectations

220 of genomics story-lines could have broader application as expectations of science story-lines, functioning to establish the boundaries of promise of science discourse; that is determining what could and could not be said about the promise of science in the context of existing policy discourses. Furthermore, the 11 expectations of genomics story-lines could potentially be used as an analytical, organizing framework for identifying and describing promissory discourses in other fields of science.

In terms of scholarship in the sociology of expectations, the discursive-ideational conceptualization of the promise of science is inadequately developed in the sociology expectations literature, as is the concept of discursive knowledge-based power. Both conceptualizations open up new vistas for exploration and inquiry of expectations of science and technology to develop deeper theoretical and empirical insights of the interplay between expectations of science and technology and technological innovation and policy. The importance of ideational effects and the dynamic interplay between ideational and material effects has important implications for the sociology of expectations of science and technology scholarship. The ideational effects of the promise of science discourse, largely absent in the sociology of expectations literature, but made visible through a discursive conceptualization of expectations of science and technology, adds an essential dimension to understanding how expectations of science and technology shape technological innovation and policy (e.g. shaping actors’ interests and subject-positions, changing widely held patterns of thinking, reconceptualizing priorities and intersubjective cooperation). The concept of subject-positions adds a compelling dimension for exploring agency in a discursive conceptualization of expectations of science and technology and for understanding the importance of expectations in the formation of actors’ interests and identities. The temporal (causal) dynamics between ideational and material impacts represents a potential mechanism for explaining and understanding the power of expectations of science and technology in shaping the trajectory of technology development and policy outcomes (Michaels, 2009; Van Lente, 1993). Performativity is a canonical concept in the sociology of expectations literature (Borup et al., 2006; van Lente, 1993) that would benefit from the addition of a discursive, process-based dynamic (e.g. ideational effects as a precondition to material impacts) to advance both theoretical and empirical understanding of the effects (power) of expectations. Current theorizing of the performativity of expectations of science and technology has been challenged as a misapplication of the original concept of performativity (Maki, 2013). I agree and would argue that knowledge-based discursive power is a more appropriate and accurate

221 concept for theorizing the effects of expectations. The distinctive roles played genome scientists and knowledge brokers in the Genome Canada case study suggests a potential recursive, enabling and constraining relationship between discursive agents and promise of science discourses that warrants further study. In the context the expectations-policy relationship, the polis-political arena relationship represents a novel conceptualization for the nascent strand of the sociology of expectations literature that is demonstrating the power of expectations of science and technology in shaping institutional, policy and regulatory frameworks (Berti & Levidow, 2014; Birch et al., 2014; Brown & Beynon-Jones, 2012; Faulkner, 2012; Groves & Tutton, 2013; McKean, 2013).

My findings and conclusions do not support normative arguments for more ‘objective’, realistic or accurate expectations of science and technology and the development of methods for assessing and evaluating the veracity and accuracy of expectations of science and technology (Apreda et al., 2014; Berkhout, 2006; Lucivero et al., 2011; Sarewitz et al., 2004; Sung & Hopkins, 2006; van Lente et al., 2013). The arguments for improved predictive and evaluative frameworks are grounded in a misguided conceptualization of expectations of science and technology as ‘knowledge-yet-to-be’ that can be assessed for their scientific veracity. My findings suggest that promise of science discourse (expectations of science and technology) does not function as an instrumental, objective, accurate description of reality. Its power is discursive and generative, rooted in its capacity to persuade policy actors of the necessity for institutional and policy changes and reforms. Through expectations of science story-lines, promise of science discourses “help to make certain things thinkable in certain ways and can contribute to the construction of broad coalitions of support” (Finlayson, 2004, p. 536). My findings highlight the ‘political’ nature of promise of science discourses (Finlayson, 2004; Litfin, 1994), which have ideational and material consequences regardless of whether they are accurate predictions of the future (Nowotny, 2014). Predictive and evaluative frameworks for more accurate, objective expectations of science and technology underestimate the contingent, complex dynamics in which promise of science discourses function, particularly, that “in politics scientific veracity. . .is only an aspect of persuasiveness” (Finlayson, 2004, p. 536).

For discursive policy analysis scholarship, my findings and conclusions highlight the unique place of promissory (future-oriented) discourses in the broader policy process. All policy is inherently future-oriented, yet the power of the future is largely elided in conceptualizations and

222 analyses of the policy process. As my data showed, the broader policy discourse during the period of my case study was intensely future oriented, given that we were approaching the turn of the century AND millennium during a period of dramatic economic growth and unprecedented federal budget surpluses. The future framed in the broader policy discourse was envisioned through the promise of science. My findings demonstrated that visions of the future compel actions in the present that have consequences in the present and the future. My findings further suggested that turning the analytical focus “towards the phenomenon of future orientation itself” with the objective to “look at how the future as a temporal abstraction is constructed and managed, by whom and under what conditions” (Brown et al., 2000b, p. 4) in discursive policy analyses would be a productive strand of scholarship that could lead to theoretical and conceptual advances. In line with Lave (2014), my thesis supports the argument that making sense of the present through the future can be equally as informative as interpreting the present through the past.

Implications for Research Policy

My thesis began with the argument that without an understanding of the nature and dynamics of the promise of science—its power to shape the beliefs, worldviews, interests, ways of thinking, priorities, identities and decisions of policy actors, transform institutional and policy frameworks and the ways in which it permeates and suffuses research policy discourse and the research policy process; it is unlikely that we will be able to manage the science-social benefits relationship that underpins the rationale and justification for research policy. I highlighted the growing strategic importance of research policy to broader national policy priorities, the increasing demands for research policy to be more effective in managing the promise of science- society relationship, the paradox of the promise of science and the lack of attention to and awareness of the influence of the promise of science on research policy as the rationale for my argument. The purpose of my thesis was to interpret and elucidate the influence of promise genomics discourse on the policy process that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. My thesis addresses the lack of attention to the ways in which the promise of science is implicated in the complex process of managing science, in all its discursive manifestations, to achieve the aspirations of society (Bozeman & Sarewitz, 2011; Nowotny, 2014; Sarewitz et al., 2004; Sarewitz & Pielke Jr., 2007).

223

The key concepts used to theoretically ground my thesis have not previously been used within a sociology of expectations theoretical framework or in research policy scholarship to understand how promise of science discourse shapes the ways that complex research policy decisions are made or to the processes that lead to research policies or how those directly and indirectly responsible for research policy decisions perceive and are influenced by the promise of science (Logar, 2007; Nowotny, 2014; Sarewitz et al., 2004; Shaw & Greenhalgh, 2008). My findings and conclusions demonstrated the critical, but complex role that the promise of genomics discourse played in shaping research policy choices, decisions, processes and outcomes. Based on my findings, the promise of genomics functions through multiple, interdependent relationships and dynamics among discursive elements, discursive practices and discursive agents. These findings and conclusions open new paths for research policy scholarship, offering new conceptual and empirical resources that contribute to existing theoretical and conceptual frameworks and models of research policy and could be another dimension of research policy analysis. My thesis provides an empirical basis for how broader policy priorities and goals, such as economic growth and competitiveness, sovereignty, national identity, sustainable resource management, trade and public health, were envisioned and mobilized through promise of genomics discourse. I have presented empirical evidence that the promise of genomics discourse shaped policy actors’ identities, interests, priorities, preferences, goals and ways of thinking. I identified several characteristics, patterns, relationships and mechanisms of promise of genomics discourses, including a crucial distinction and relationship between science and technology expectations and socio-economic expectations. I showed how socio-economic expectations, which represent social values and aspirations, were perceived as scientific knowledge through discursive immingling with science and technology expectations and therefore carried the same epistemic authority as scientific knowledge. I showed a temporal relationship between ideational and material effects, such that ideational effects are a precursor for material impacts. I identified a relationship between scientists in the polis and knowledge brokers in the political arena. Collectively, these findings and conclusions represent a theoretical and analytical heuristic for more deeply interrogating how other promissory scientific discourses might shape research policy decisions, choices, outcomes and policy actors’ agency. Given the complex dynamics involved, there is the potential that the same dynamics or effects would not be discerned. It is also possible that in certain policy situations promissory scientific discourses would not have significant ideational or material effects in shaping research policy choices, decisions, outcomes

224 or policy actors’ agency. Detailed analyses of promise of science discourses and political- historical contexts are necessary for determining whether and how a specific discourse might shape research policy. A potential avenue for future research policy scholarship is international comparative studies that explore and identify how the promise of science is envisioned and perceived in other political-cultural contexts and how specific political-cultural perceptions might influence how the promise of science shapes research policy.

My thesis contributes to a better understanding of the implication of research policy decisions for societal outcomes. It offers a means by which the research policy process can be connected to the contexts within the use of research envisioned. It provides an analytical basis for identifying connections among research policy decisions, the production of knowledge, the use of the knowledge for specific socio-economic impacts. My thesis suggests that the promise of science upon which research funding is predicated does not function as an accurate, literal prediction of future benefits, but as powerful discursive visions of a desirable future that are meant to motivate actions in the present to begin moving towards a highly uncertain, contingent future. More careful scrutiny of promise of science discourse during the research policy process to assess the alignment between research priorities and societal needs may identify alternative research priorities not envisioned by the dominant promise of science discourse. Whether those alternatives will be more likely to achieve the expected outcomes is uncertain. At a minimum, critical focus on promise of science discourses in the research policy process could alert policy actors to misalignments and other policy options. It is unlikely, however; that we ever really know if we are doing the ‘right’ science (Sarewitz et al., 2004) until we do it.

The promise of science plays a key role in shaping and guiding research policy decisions and outcomes, not as accurate, objective predictions of the future, but as persuasive visions of the future that serve primarily to achieve policy reforms and institutional change, while emphasizing advances in science and technology leading to socio-economic impacts. Research policy decisions—how to allocate limited resources to whom, for what and how much is about choosing among an array of alternative, potential desirable futures. The complex joining of scientific research to the impacts on society continues to be the foundation of a central claim of research policy. Explicitly acknowledging and directly interrogating promise of science discourses should be part of the research policy process. An awareness and understanding of the multiple ways in which promise of science discourses are framed and made sense of through a diverse array of

225 expectations of story-lines opens up the potential for not only more percipient deliberation of promise of science discourses in broader research policy debates, but, crucially, the potential for re-imagining research policy in navigating the dynamic and complex relationship between science and society.

References

Access to Information Act, Revised Statues of Canada (c. A-1) (1985). Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A. (2002). Conducting and coding elite interviews. Political Science & Politics, 35(4), 673-676. Adam, B. (2010). History of the future: Paradoxes and challenges. Rethinking History, 14(3), 361-378. Adger, N. W., Benjaminsen, T. A., Brown, K., & Svarstad, H. (2001). Advancing a Political Ecology of Global Environmental Discourses. Development and change, 32, 681-715. Advisory Panel on Federal Support for Fundamental Science. (2017). Investing in Canada's Future: Strengthening the Foundations of Canadian Research - Canada's Fundamental Science Review. (0995924325). Advisory Panel on Federal Support for Fundamental Science Retrieved from http://www.sciencereview.ca/eic/site/059.nsf/vwapj/ScienceReview_April2017.pdf/$file/ ScienceReview_April2017.pdf. Alkemade, F., & Suurs, R. A. A. (2012). Patterns of expectations for emerging sustainable technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(3), 448-456. Apreda, R., Bonaccorsi, A., Fantoni, G., & Gabelloni, D. (2014). Functions and failures: how to manage technological promises for societal challenges. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(4), 369-384. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisà Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ayala, F. J. (1987). Two frontiers of human biology: What the sequence won't tell us. Issues in Science and Technology, 3(3), 51-56. Baltimore, D. (1987). A Small-Science Approach. Issues in Science and Technology, 3(3), 48- 50. Béland, D. (2010). The idea of power and the role of ideas. Political Studies Review, 8(2), 145- 154. Berkhout, F. (2006). Normative expectations in systems innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3-4), 299-311. Berti, P., & Levidow, L. (2014). Fuelling expectations: a policy-promise lock-in of UK biofuel policy. Energy Policy, 66, 135-143. Beynon-Jones, S. M., & Brown, N. (2011). Time, timing and narrative at the interface between UK technoscience and policy. Science and Public Policy, 38(8), 639 - 648. doi:10.3152/030234211X13111546663331 Birch, K. (2016). Emergent imaginaries and fragmented policy frameworks in the Canadian bioeconomy. Sustainability, 8(10), 1007. Birch, K., Levidow, L., & Papaioannou, T. (2014). Self-fulfilling prophecies of the European knowledge-based bio-economy: The discursive shaping of institutional and policy

226 227

frameworks in the bio-pharmaceuticals sector. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(1), 1-18. Bomberg, E. (2017). Shale we drill? Discourse dynamics in UK fracking debates. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(1), 72-88. Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & Van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3-4), 285 - 298. Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2005). Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(2), 119-136. Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2011). Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation. Minerva, 49(1), 1-23. Braun, D. (1999). Interests or ideas? An overview of ideational concepts in public policy research. In D. Bruan & A. Busch (Eds.), Public policy and political ideas (pp. 11-29). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Broer, T., & Pickersgill, M. (2015). (Low) expectations, legitimization, and the contingent uses of scientific knowledge: Engagements with neuroscience in Scottish social policy and services. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 1, 47-66. Brown, N. (2003). Hope against hype: accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies, 16(2), 3-21. Brown, N. (2005). Shifting tenses: Reconnecting regimes of truth and hope. Configurations, 13(3), 331-355. Brown, N., & Beynon-Jones, S. M. (2012). 'Reflex regulation': An anatomy of promissory science governance. Health Risk & Society, 14(3), 223-240. Brown, N., Kraft, A., & Martin, P.(2006). The promissory pasts of blood stem cells. Biosocieties, 1(03), 329-348. Brown, N., & Michael, M. (2003). A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 3 - 18. Brown, N., Rappert, B., & Webster, A. (Eds.). (2000a). Contested Futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Brown, N., Rappert, B., & Webster, A. (2000b). Introducing contested futures: From looking into the future to looking at the future. In N. Brown, B. Rappert, & A. Webster (Eds.), Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science (pp. 3-20). Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Brown, N., Rip, A., & Van Lente, H. (2003). Expectations In & about science and technology: Background Paper. Paper presented at the ‘Expectations’ workshop June 13 - 14 2003. Bubela, T. (2006). Science communication in transition: genomics hype, public engagement, education and commercialization pressures. Clinical genetics, 70(5), 445-450. Buchanan, K. S. (2013). Contested discourses, knowledge, and socio-environmental conflict in Ecuador. Environmental Science & Policy, 30, 19-25.

228

Bush, V. (1945). Science: the endless frontier. Washington D.C.: Office of Scientific Research Development, United States. Cabanes, B., Segrestin, B., Weil, B., & Le Masson, P. (2014). Understanding the Role of Collective Imaginary in the Dynamics of Expectations: The Space Industry Case Study. Paper presented at the 21st International Product Development Management Conference, Limerick, Ireland. Callon, M. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In D. Mackenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 310-357). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Campbell, C. (2009). Distinguishing the power of agency from agentic power: A note on Weber and the “black box” of personal agency. Sociological Theory, 27(4), 407-418. Campbell, J. L. (2002). Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 21-38. Canada. (2007). Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage. (Cat. No. Iu4- 105/2007E-PDF). Ottawa: Government of Canada. Carayannis, E., Barth, T., & Campbell, D. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1-12. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems: 21st-century democracy, innovation and entrepreneurship for development. New York: Springer. Carstensen, M. B. (2011). Ideas are not as stable as political scientists want them to be: A theory of incremental ideational change. Political Studies, 59(3), 596-615. Carstensen, M. B., & Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Power through, over and in ideas: Conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 318-337. Carvalho, A. (2017). Wishful thinking about R&D policy targets: What governments promise and what they actually deliver. Science and Public Policy, scx069-scx069. doi:10.1093/scipol/scx069 Caulfield, T. (2016). Ethics hype? Hastings Center Report, 46(5), 13-16. Caulfield, T., & Condit, C. (2012). Science and the sources of hype. Public Health Genomics, 15(3-4), 209-217. Caulfield, T., Harmon, S. H., & Joly, Y. (2012). Open science versus commercialization: A modern research conflict? Genome Medicine, 4(2), 17-27. Caulfield, T., Sipp, D., Murry, C. E., Daley, G. Q., & Kimmelman, J. (2016). Confronting stem cell hype. Science, 352(6287), 776-777. Cavoukian, A. (1989). Genetic Testing: the ultimate threat to privacy. Paper presented at the ASAP: ACCESS'89 An International Workshop/Training Session on Access and Privacy Laws, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Cavoukian, A. (1991). Genetic Testing in the Employment Sector. Paper presented at the XIIIth Conference of Data Protection Commissioners, Strasbourg, France.

229

Chiles, R. M. (2013). If they come, we will build it: In vitro meat and the discursive struggle over future agrofood expectations. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(4), 511-523. Collins, F., & Galas, D. (1993). A new five-year plan for the US Human Genome Project. Science, 262(5130), 43-46. Cook-Deegan, R. M. (1994). The gene wars: Science, politics, and the human genome. New York: WW Norton & Company. Cooper, R. (2013). Good intentions: Expectations of benefit from technoscience innovation: Genetic modification and wind energy in New Zealand. (PhD Doctoral dissertation), University of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/8555/Thesis_fulltext.pdf?sequence=1 &isAllowed=y Cotton, M., Rattle, I., & Van Alstine, J. (2014). Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis. Energy Policy, 73, 427-438. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (Third ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Davenport, S., & Leitch, S. (2009). Creating Space for the Successor: The Discourse Strategies of Pro and Anti-GM Factions Regarding the Future of Agriculture in New Zealand. European Planning Studies, 17(7), 943-961. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user friendly guide for social scientists. London and New York: Routledge. Dill, D. D., & van Vught, F. (2009). National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Doern, G. B., Castle, D., & Phillips, P.W. B. (2016). Canadian Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: The Innovation Economy and Society Nexus. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duboule, D. (1997). The evolution of genomics. Science, 278(5338), 555. Eames, M., McDowall, W., Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2006). Negotiating contested visions and place-specific expectations of the hydrogen economy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3-4), 361-374. doi:10.1080/09537320600777127 Eggleston, W. (1978). National Research in Canada: The NRC 1916-1966. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Company. Eleveld, A. (2013). Discourse Theory on Ideas and Policy Reform: The Case of the Life Course Arrangement. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(3), 378-397. Eleveld, A. (2016). The role of ideas in policy and institutional change: A comparison of the open functional approach, constructivism and discourse theory. Political Studies, 64(1S), 70-87.

230

Epstein, C. (2008). The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse. Cambridge: MIT Press. Evans, J. P., Meslin, E. M., Marteau, T. M., & Caulfield, T. (2011). Deflating the genomic bubble. Science, 331(6019), 861-862. Expert Panel on Business Innovation in Canada. (2009). Innovation and Business Strategy: Why Canada Falls Short. Ottawa: Council of Canadian Academies. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Faulkner, A. (2012). Law's performativities: Shaping the emergence of regenerative medicine through European Union legislation. Social Studies of Science, 42(5), 753-774. Feagin, J., Orum, A., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A case for the case study. Chapel Hill and London: UNC Press Books. Feindt, P. H., & Oels, A. (2005). Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 161-173. Finlayson, A. (2004). Political science, political ideas and rhetoric. Economy and Society, 33(4), 528-549. Finlayson, A. (2007). From Beliefs to Arguments: Interpretive Methodology and Rhetorical Policy Analysis. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9, 545-563. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning: Duke University Press. Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (Eds.). (2012). The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2013). The argumentative turn in public policy revisited: Twenty years later. Critical Policy Studies, 7(4), 425-433. Fisher, D., Atkinson-Grosjean, J., & House, D. (2001). Changes in academy/industry/state relations in Canada: The creation and development of the networks of centres of excellence. Minerva, 39(3), 299-325. Fleising, U. (2001). In search of genohype: A content analysis of biotechnology company documents. New Genetics and Society, 20(3), 239-254. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures, 25(7), 739- 755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L Gale, T. (1999). Policy Trajectories - Treading the discursive path of policy analysis. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 20(3), 393-407. Geels, F., & Raven, R. (2006). Non-linearity and Expectations in Niche-Development Trajectories: Ups and Downs in Dutch Biogas Development (1973–2003). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3-4), 375-392. doi:10.1080/09537320600777143 Geels, F., & Smit, W. (2000). Failed technology futures: Pitfalls and lessons from a historical survey. Futures, 32(9), 867-885.

231

Geiger, R. L. & Sá., C. M. (2008). Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Genome Canada. (2017). Partnership - It's in our DNA, 2016- 2017 Annual Report. Ottawa: Genome Canada. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geva-May, I. (Ed.) (2005). Thinking Like a Policy Analyst - Policy Analysis as a Clinical Profession. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. Gilbert, W. (1991). Towards a paradigm shift in biology. Nature, 349, 99. Gillespie, A., & Cornish, F. (2009). Intersubjectivity: Towards a Dialogical Analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(1), 19-46. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2016). Governing science: How science policy shapes research content. European Journal of sociology/Archives Européennes de sociologie, 57(1), 117-168. Glover, D. (2010). Exploring the Resilience of Bt Cotton's ‘Pro-Poor Success Story’. Development and change, 41(6), 955-981. Glynn, S. (2002). Constructing a selection environment: Competing expectations for CFC alternatives. Research Policy, 31(6), 935-946. Godin, B., & Doré, C. (2005, 2005). Measuring the Impacts of Science: Beyond the economic dimension. Paper presented at the International Conference "Science Impact - Rethinking the Impact of Basic Research on Society and the Economy, Montreal. Goffeau, A. (1995). Life with 482 genes. Science, 270(5235), 445-445. Goffeau, A., Barrell, B. G., Bussey, H., Davis, R., Dujon, B., Feldmann, H., Galibert, F., Hoheisel, J., Jacq, C., Johnston, M., Louis, E., Mewes, H., Murakami, Y., Philippsen, P., Tettelin, H., Oliver, S., (1996). Life with 6000 genes. Science, 274(5287), 546-567. Gottweis, H. (1998). Governing Molecules: The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gottweis, H. (2006). Argumentative Policy Analysis. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gottweis, H. (2007). 17 Rhetoric in Policy Making. In F. Fischer & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods (pp. 237-250). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Goujon, P. (2001). From Biotechnology to Genomes: The meaning of the double helix. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Groves, C., & Tutton, R. (2013). Walking the tightrope: Expectations and standards in personal genomics. Biosocieties, 8(2), 181-204. doi:10.1057/biosoc.2013.1 Guice, J. (1999). Designing the future: the culture of new trends in science and technology. Research Policy, 28(1), 81-98.

232

Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process: Clarendon Press Oxford. Hajer, M. A., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 175-184. Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Hanson, V. L. (2011). Envisioning Ethical Nanotechnology: The Rhetorical Role of Visions in Postponing Societal and Ethical Implications Research. Science as Culture, 20(1), 1-36. Harvey, D. L. (2009). Complexity and case. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The sage handbook of case-based methods (pp. 15-38). London: Sage Publications. Hay, C. (2011). Ideas and the Construction of Interests. In D. Beland & R. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and politics in social science research (pp. 65-82). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hedgecoe, A., Martin, Paul. (2003). The Drugs Don't Work: Expectations and the Shaping of Pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 327-364. doi:10.1177/03063127030333002 Hedgecoe, A. (2010). Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Social Studies of Science, 40(2), 163-186. Hieter, P., & Boguski, M. (1997). Functional genomics: It's all how you read it. Science, 278(5338), 601-602. Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy Analysis, Science and Politics: from 'speaking truth to power' to 'making sense together'. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 201-210. Hoppe, R. (2005). Rethinking the Science-Policy Nexus: From knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis Prax, 3, 199-215. Horst, M. (2007). Public Expectations of Gene Therapy Scientific Futures and Their Performative Effects on Scientific Citizenship. Science, Technology & Human Values, 32(2), 150-171. House of Commons Special Committee on Scientific Research. (1919). Proceedings. Ottawa. Hultman, M., & Nordlund, C. (2013). Energizing technology: Expectations of fuel cells and the hydrogen economy, 1990-2005. History and Technology, 29(1), 33-53. Industry Canada. (2015). Evaluation of Industry Canada's Contribution to Genome Canada. Ottawa: Industry Canada. Isabelle, D. A., & Heslop, L. A. (2011). Managing for success in international scientific collaborations: Views from Canadian government senior science managers. Science and Public Policy, 38(5), 349-364.

233

Jacob, F., & Monod, J. (1961). Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins. Journal of Molecular Biology, 3(3), 318-356. Jamison, A., & Hård, M. (2003). The story-lines of technological change: Innovation, construction and appropriation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 81- 91. Jenkins, T., Dahlby, B., Gupta, A., Leroux, M., Naylor, D., & Robinson, N. (2011). Innovation Canada: A Call to Action. Review of Federal Support to Research and Development- Expert Panel Report. Ottawa: Government of Canada Retrieved from http://rd- review.ca/eic/site/033.nsf/vwapj/Innovation_Canada_Procurement_Report- eng.pdf/$FILE/Innovation_Canada_Procurement_Report-eng.pdf. Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear Enough to be Wrong? Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 329-353. Jönsson, E. (2016). Benevolent technotopias and hitherto unimaginable meats: Tracing the promises of in vitro meat. Social Studies of Science, 46(5), 725-748. Jung, H. J., & Lee, J. (2014). The impacts of science and technology policy interventions on university research: Evidence from the US National Nanotechnology Initiative. Research Policy, 43(1), 74-91. Kearnes, M., & Wienroth, M. (2011). Tools of the trade: UK research intermediaries and the politics of impacts. Minerva, 49(2), 153-174. Keller, E. F. (2000). The century of the gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kezar, A. (2003). Transformational elite interviews: Principles and problems. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3), 395-415. Kinder, J., & Welsh, F. (2012). Performing Strategic Science in the Public Interest: Updating the Policy Debate Regarding Government Science. Scientia Canadensis: Canadian Journal of the History of Science, Technology and Medicine/Scientia Canadensis: Revue canadienne d'histoire des sciences, des techniques et de la médecine, 35(1-2), 135-149. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press. Kitzinger, J., Williams, C. (2005). Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate. Social Science & Medicine, 61(3), 731 - 740. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.03.018 Kitzinger, J. (2008). Questioning hype, rescuing hope? The Hwang stem cell scandal and the reassertion of hopeful horizons. Science as Culture, 17(4), 417-434. Knoppers, B. M., & Chadwick, R. (1994). The Human Genome Project: Under an international ethical microscope. Science, 265(5181), 2035-2037. Koay, P., & Sharp, R. R. (2014). Managing expectational language: Translational genetic professionals consider the clinical potential of next-generation sequencing technologies. New Genetics and Society, 33(2), 126-148. Kokotovich, A., & Kuzma, J. (2014). Conflicting futures: Environmental regulation of plant targeted genetic modification. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 34(3-4), 108- 120.

234

Konrad, K. (2006). The social dynamics of expectations: The interaction of collective and actor- specific expectations on electronic commerce and interactive television. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3-4), 429-444. doi:10.1080/09537320600777192 Kosseim, P., & Chapman, S. (2011). Science and society: Some “made-in-Canada” options for improving integration. Accountability in research, 18(3), 194-216. KPMG. (2009). Evaluation of Genome Canada - Final Report. Retrieved from: https://www.genomecanada.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/en/Five-year_Evaluation.pdf Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (Fourth ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press. Laffey, M., & Weldes, J. (1997). Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Studies of International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 3(2), 193-237. Lave, R. (2014). Freedom and constraint: Generative expectations in the US stream restoration field. Geoforum, 52, 236-244. Lazarevic, D., & Valve, H. (2017). Narrating expectations for the circular economy: Towards a common and contested European transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 31, 60- 69. Lejano, R. P., & Leong, C. (2012). A Hermeneutic Approach to Explaining and Understanding Public Controversies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 794- 814. Lemay, M. A., & Sá, C. (2013). The use of academic research in public health policy and practice. Research Evaluation, 23(1), 79-88. Levidow, L., Birch, K., & Papaionannou, T. (2012). EU Agri-Innovation Policy: Two Contending Visions of the Bio-Economy. Critical Policy Studies, 6(1), 40-65. Levidow, L., & Papaioannou, T. (2013). States imaginaries of the Public Good: Shaping UK Innovation Priorities of Bioenergy. Environmental Science & Policy, 30, 36-49. Lewin, R. (1986). Proposal to sequence the human genome stirs debate. Science, 232(4758), 1598-1600. Leydesdorff, L. (2005). The Triple Helix Model and the study of Knowledge Based Innovation Systems. The International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 42(1), 1-16. Liao, T. (2012, 5-8 Nov. 2012). A framework for debating augmented futures: Classifying the visions, promises and ideographs advanced about augmented reality. Paper presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-AMH) Atlanta, GA. Lippman, A. (1992). Led (astray) by genetic maps: The cartography of the human genome and health care. Social Science & Medicine, 35(12), 1469-1476. Litfin, K. T. (1994). Ozone Discourses: Sciences and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press. Lloyd, G. (2002). The man of reason:" Male" and" female" in western philosophy (Second ed.). London: Routledge. Logar, N. (2007). Federally funded science for user benefit: Policy mechanisms for mission- oriented research. (PhD Doctoral dissertation), University of Colorado at Boulder.

235

Retrieved from http://myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/30485 9100?accountid=14771 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304859100) database. Logar, N. (2011). Scholarly science policy models and real policy, RSD for SciSIP in US Mission Agencies. Policy Sciences, 44(3), 249-266. Lösch, A. (2006). Anticipating the futures of nanotechnology: Visionary images as means of communication. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3-4), 393-409. doi:10.1080/09537320600777168 Lösch, A. (2006). Means of communicating innovations. A case study for the analysis and assessment of nanotechnology’s futuristic visions. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 2(2), PP. 103-125. Lovell, H. (2008). Discourse and innovation journeys: The case of low energy housing in the UK. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 613-632. Lucivero, F., Swierstra, T., & Boenink, M. (2011). Assessing expectations: Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. NanoEthics, 5(2), 129-141. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter. Lundvall, B.-Å., & Borrás, S. (2005). Science, technology, and innovation policy. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 599-631): Oxford University Press. MacKenzie, D. (2006). Is economics performative? Option theory and the construction of derivatives markets. Journal of the history of economic thought, 28(1), 29-55. Magnuszewski, P., Sodomkova, K., Slob, A., Muro, M., Sendzimir J., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2010). Report on conceptual framework for science-policy barriers and bridges. Final version 22.12.2010 of deliverable No. 1.1 of the EC FP7 project PSI-connect. EC contract No. 226915. Retrieved from: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/16368804/d1.1_psiconnect_concept ual_framework_dec_2010.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Ex pires=1526150977&Signature=Eqh2O8eBuGSfgZ6eliGobwHlTlM%3D&response- content- disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DREPORT_ON_CONCEPTUAL_FRAMEWOR K_FOR_SCIEN.pdf Majone, G. (1980). Policies as theories. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 8(2), 151-162. Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press. Mäki, U. (2013). Performativity: Saving Austin from MacKenzie. In V. Karakostas & D. Dieks (Eds.), EPSA11 Perspectives and Foundational Problems in Philosophy of Science, The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings (pp. 443-453). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Marshall, E. (1995). Emphasis turns from mapping to large-scale sequencing. Science, 268(5215), 1270-1272.

236

Marshall, E. (1996). Funding crisis grips genome research. Science, 273(5277), 867. Marshall, E. (1997). Is data-hoarding slowing the assault of pathogens? Science, 275(5301), 777. Martin, J. (2015). Situating Speech - A Rhetorical Approach to Political Strategy. Political Studies, 63, 25-42. Martin, P. (2015). Commercialising neurofutures: Promissory economies, value creation and the making of a new industry. Biosocieties, 10(4), 422-443. Martin, P. (2018). Genomic hope: Promise in the bioeconomy. In S. Gibbon, B. Prainsack, S. Hilgartner, & J. Lamoreaux (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Genomics, Health and Society (Second ed., pp. 79-89). New York: Routledge. Martin, P., Brown, N., & Kraft, A. (2008). From bedside to bench? Communities of promise, translational research and the making of blood stem cells. Science as Culture, 17(1), 29- 41. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Los Angeles: Sage. Maxwell, J. A., & Miller, B. A. (2008). Categorizing and connecting strategies in qualitative data analysis. In Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber &, P.Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 461-477). New York: The Guilford Press. McGrail, S. (2011). Promising, contesting and abandoning nanotechnology: Dynamics of unrealised promises, expectations, and engagement with nanotechnology in the Australian context. (MA Master's thesis), University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from https://minerva- access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/36848/275714_MA%20Thesis- McGrail.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y McKean, V. (2013). The role of expectations and visions of the future in the development of target-based environmental policies: The case of the UK Air Quality Strategy. (PhD Doctoral Dissertation), University of Sussex. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/58039/1/McKean%2C%20Vanessa.pdf Merton, R. K. (1942). Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of legal and political sociology, 1(1-2), 115-126. Metcalfe, A. S. (2008). Theorizing research policy: A framework for higher education. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 241-275): Springer. Metze, T. A. (2009). Discursive power in Deliberations: A case of redevelopment for the creative economy in the Netherlands. Policy and Society, 28(3), 241-251. Michael, M. (2000). Futures of the Present: From Performativity to Prehension. In N. Brown, B. Rappert, & A. Webster (Eds.), Contested futures: A sociology of prospective technoscience (pp. 21-40). Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Michaels, S. (2009). Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 994-1011.

237

Migone, A., & Howlett, M. (2009). Classifying biotechnology-related policy, regulatory and innovation regimes: A framework for the comparative analysis of genomics policymaking. Policy and Society, 28(4), 267-278. Milne, R. (2010). Drawing bright lines: Food and the futures of biopharming. Sociological Review, 58, 133-151. Milne, R. (2012). Pharmaceutical prospects: Biopharming and the geography of technological expectations. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 290 - 306. doi:10.1177/0306312711436266 Mitcham, C., & Frodeman, R. (2004). New directions in the philosophy of science: Toward a philosophy of science policy. Philosophy Today, 48, 3-15. Morris, N. (2003). Academic researchers as ‘agents’ of science policy. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 359-370. Morris, Z. S. (2009). The truth about interviewing elites. Politics, 29(3), 209-217. Motion, J., & Leitch, S. (2009). The transformational potential of public policy discourse. Organization Studies, 30(10), 1045-1061. Mulkay, M. (1993). Rhetorics of Hope and Fear in the Great Embryo Debate. Social Studies of Science, 23(4), 721-742. doi:10.2307/285730 Nelis, A., Reddy, C., & Mulder, E. (2006). ELSA Genomics in the ERASAGE Consortium: Similarities and differences in approaches and themes in the study of the relationship between genomics and society November 2006: ERASAGE European Research Area on the Societal Aspects of Genomics. Available at http://www. erasage. org/images/erasage/documents/Reports_documents/WP1report_. Nelson, R. R. (Ed.) (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. Nerlich, B., & Halliday, C. (2007). Avian flu: The creation of expectations in the interplay between science and the media. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(1). doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9566.2007.00517.x Nielsen, T. D. (2014). The role of discourses in governing forests to combat climate change. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14(3), 265-280. Niosi, J. (2005). Canada's regional innovation system: The science-based industries. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Nowak, R. (1995). Entering the post genome era. Science, 270(5235), 368-371. Nowotny, H. (2014). Engaging with the political imaginaries of science: Near misses and future targets. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 16-20. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M., & Scott, P.B. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Malden: Blackwell Publishers Inc. NRC. (1959). National Research Council of Canada Report on University Support for Science, Engineering and Medicine for the 42nd Year of Operation 1958-1959. (NRC No. 4952). Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol: The Policy Press.

238

Nymark, C. (2001). A Model for Governance in the 21st Century: Creating Genome Canada. Ottawa: Industry Canada. Ockwell, D., & Rydin, Y. (2006). Conflicting discourses of knowledge: Understanding the policy adoption of pro-burning knowledge claims in Cape York Peninsula, Australia. Environmental Politics, 15(03), 379-398. Pal, L. (2005). Case Study Method and Policy Analysis. In I. Geva-May (Ed.), Thinking Like a Policy Analyst (pp. 227-257): Palgrave-Macmillan. Palmer, J. (2010). Stopping the Unstoppable? A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis of Renewable Transport Fuel Policy. Environment & Planning C: Government and Policy, 28, 992-1010. Parandian, A., Rip, A., & Te Kulve, H. (2012). Dual dynamics of promises and waiting games around emerging nanotechnologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(6), 565-582. Parsons, C. (2007). How to map arguments in political science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods - Integrating Theory and Practice (Fourth ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Penders, B., & Goven, J. (2010). Nutrigenomics and the stewardship of scientific promises. Biotechnology Journal, 5(9), 909-912. Petersen, A., & Krisjansen, I. (2015). Assembling ‘the bioeconomy’: Exploiting the power of the promissory life sciences. Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 28-46. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. B. (2004). Discourse and Institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 635-652. Phillips, P. (2005). The Challenge of Creating, Protecting & Exploiting Networked Knowledge. In F. Timmermans & E. F. Einsiedel (Eds.), Crossing over: Genomics in the public arena (pp. 13-37). Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Phillips, P. (2010). Genomics and public policy: Wealth for Canadians. The Integrated Assessment Journal, 10(1), 7-21. Phillips, R. (1998). The Politics of History: Some methodological and ethical dilemmas in élite- based research. British Educational Research Journal, 24(1), 5-19. Phillips, R. L., & Freeling, M. (1998). Plant genomics and our food supply: An introduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(5), 1969-1970. Pollock, N., & Williams, R. (2010). The business of expectations: How promissory organizations shape technology and innovation. Social Studies of Science, 40(4), 525-548. Porter, J. J., & Randalls, S. (2014). Politics of expectations: Nature, culture and the production of space. Geoforum, 52, 203-205. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.01.016 Portin, P. (1993). The concept of the gene: Short history and present status. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 68(2), 173-223. Power, C., Levy, E., Marden, E., & Warren, B. (2008). Alternative IP Mechanisms in Genomic Research. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 2(2), Article 5.

239

Prichard, J. R. S. (2000). Federal support for higher education and research in Canada: The new paradigm: Killam Trusts. Raymond, L., & Olive, A. (2009). Ideas, Discourse, and Rhetoric in Political Choice. Polity, 41(2), 189-210. Rein, M., & Schon, D. (1996). Frame - Critical Policy Analysis and Frame Reflective Policy Practices. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 9(1), 85-104. Roberts, L. (1988). Carving up the human genome. Science, 242(4883), 1244-1246. Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Rosengarten, M., Michael, Mike. (2009). The performative function of expectations in translating treatment to prevention: The case of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP. Social Science & Medicine, 69(7), 1049 - 1055. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.039 Royal Commission on Government Organization. (1963). Special Areas of Administration: Scientific Research and Development vol. 4. (Catalogue number Z1-1960/4-4E-PDF). Ottawa: Government of Canada. Rubin, G. M. (1996). Around the genomes: The Drosophila genome project. Genome Research, 6(2), 71-79. Salazar, M., & Holbrook, A. (2007). Canadian science, technology and innovation policy: The product of regional networking? Regional Studies, 41(8), 1129-1141. Saner, M. (2014). A Map of the Interface Between Science & Policy. Retrieved from University of Ottawa: http://issp.uottawa.ca/sites/issp.uottawa.ca/files/issp2014-spibrief6- mapoftheinterface.pdf Sanz Menéndez, L., & Cabello, C. (2000). Expectations and learning as principles of shaping the future. In N. Brown, B. Rappert, & A. Webster (Eds.), Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science (pp. 229-249). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Sarewitz, D. (2016). Saving science. The New Atlantis, 49, 4-40. Sarewitz, D., Foladori, G., Invernizzi, N., & Garfinkel, M. S. (2004). Science policy in its social context. Philosophy Today, 48(Supplement), 67-83. Sarewitz, D., & Pielke Jr, R. A. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(1), 5-16. Sasaki, T. (1998). The rice genome project in Japan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(5), 2027-2028. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303-326. Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1-25. Schyfter, P., & Calvert, J. (2015). Intentions, expectations and institutions: Engineering the future of synthetic biology in the USA and the UK. Science as Culture, 24(4), 359-383.

240

Science Council of Canada. (1968). Towards a National Science Policy for Canada, Report No. 4. (Catalogue No. SS22-1968/4). Ottawa: Government of Canada. Science Council of Canada. (1992). Reaching for Tomorrow: Science and Technology Policy in Canada. (Catalogue No. 5531-22/1992E). Ottawa: Government of Canada. Science Technology and Innovation Council of Canada (STIC). (2011). State of the Nation 2010 - Canada's Science, Technology and Innovation System. (Cat. No. Iu4-142/2010E). Ottawa: Government of Canada. Science-Metrix. (2014). Genome Canada Five-Year Evaluation - Evaluation Report. Montreal, QC: Science-Metrix. Selin, C. (2007). Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 32(2), 196-220. Senate Special Committee on Science Policy. (1977). Progress and Unfinished Business, Vol. 4. Ottawa. Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2011). Policy Narratives and Policy Processes. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 535-561. Shaw, S. E. (2010). Reaching the Parts that other Theories and Methods Can't Reach: How and Why a Policy-as-Discourse Can Inform Health-Related Policy. Health, 14(2), 196-212. Shaw, S. E. G., Trisha. (2008). Best research - For what? Best health - For whom? A critical exploration of primary care research using discourse analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 66(12), 2506-2519. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.02.014 Simakova, E. (2012). Making Nano Matter: An Inquiry into the Discourses of Governable Science. Science Technology & Human Values, 37(6), 604-626. Sinsheimer, R. L. (1989). The Santa Cruz Workshop—May 1985. Genomics, 5(4), 954-956. Sloane, D. J. (2009). Visualizing qualitative information. The Qualitative Report, 14(3), 488- 497. Smiley, J.-P. (2016). Exploring policy discourses in the UK construction sector: An interpretive analysis. (PhD), Loughborough University. Smith, A. (2009). The Roles and Responsibilities of Central Agencies. (PRB 09-01E). Ottawa: Library of Parliament. Smith, A., & Kern, F. (2009). The transitions storyline in Dutch environmental policy. Environmental Politics, 18(1), 78-98. Smith, K. (2013). Beyond evidence-based policy in public health: The interplay of ideas: Palgrave Macmillan. Smith, L., & Hood, L. (1987). Mapping and sequencing the human genome: How to proceed. Nature Biotechnology, 5(9), 933. Snow, D. A., Zurcher, L. A., & Sjoberg, G. (1982). Interviewing by comment: An adjunct to the direct question. Qualitative Sociology, 5(4), 285-311. Spurgeon, D. (1992). Canada commits money for human genome research. Nature, 357(6378), 428. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

241

Stephan, H. R. (2017). The discursive politics of unconventional gas in Scotland: Drifting towards precaution? Energy Research & Social Science, 23, 159-168. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Stone, D. A. (2012). Policy Paradox: The art of political decision making (Third ed.). New York: WW Norton & Company. Sung, J. J., & Hopkins, M. M. (2006). Towards a method for evaluating technological expectations: Revealing uncertainty in gene silencing technology discourse. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3-4), 345-359. doi:10.1080/09537320600777119 Thistle, M. (1966). The Inner Ring - The early history of the National Research Council of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Tutton, R. (2011). Promising pessimism: Reading the futures to be avoided in biotech. Social Studies of Science, 41(3), 411-429. Tyfield, D. (2012). A Cultural Political Economy of Research and Innovation in an Age of Crisis. Minerva, 50(2), 149-167. doi:10.1007/s11024-012-9201-y U.S. Congress, O. o. T. A. (1988). Mapping Our Genes - The Genome Projects, How Big, How Fast? OTA-BA-373. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Van Lente, H. (1993). Promising technology: The dynamics of expectations in technological developments. (PhD Doctoral Dissertation), Universiteit Twente, Twente, The Netherlands. van Lente, H. (2006). Prospective structures of science and science policy. In J. Hage & M. Meeus (Eds.), Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change: A Research Handbook: Oxford University Press, Inc. Van Lente, H., & Rip, A. (1998). The Rise of Membrane Technology from Rhetorics to Social Reality. Social Studies of Science, 28(2), 221-254. van Lente, H., Spitters, C., & Peine, A. (2013). Comparing technological hype cycles: Towards a theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1615-1628. Venter, J. C., Smith, H. O., & Hood, L. (1996). A new strategy for genome sequencing. Nature, 381(6581), 364-366. Verdinelli, S., & Scagnoli, N. I. (2013). Data display in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 359-381. Vignola-Gagne, E. (2014). Argumentative practices in science technology and innovation policy: The case of clinician-scientists and translational research. Science and Public Policy, 41, 94-106. Wainwright, S. P., Michael, Mike, Williams, Clare. (2009). Shifting paradigms? Reflections on regenerative medicine, embryonic stem cells and pharmaceuticals. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(6), 959-974. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01118.x Wainwright, S. P., Williams, C., Michael, M., Farsides, B., & Cribb, A. (2006). From bench to bedside? Biomedical scientists' expectations of stem cell science as a future therapy for diabetes. Social Science & Medicine, 63(8), 2052 - 2064. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.05.003

242

Watson, J. D. (1990). The human genome project: Past, present, and future. Science, 248(4951), 44-49. Webster, A. (2005). Social science and a post-genomic future: Alternative readings of genomic agency. New Genetics and Society, 24(2), 227-238. Weinberg, A. M. (1972). Science and trans-science. Minerva, 10(2), 209-222. Weiss, C. (1991). Policy research: Data, ideas or arguments? In, P.Wagner, C. Weiss, B. Wittrock, & H. Wollmann (Eds.), Social sciences and modern states: national experiences and theoretical crossroads (pp. 307-332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wesselink, A., Buchanan, K. S., Georgiadou, Y., & Turnhout, E. (2013). Technical Knowledge, Discursive Spaces and Politics at the Science-Policy Interface. Environmental Science & Policy, 30, 1-9. Wesselink, A., Colebatch, H., & Pearce, W. (2014). Evidence and Policy - Discourses, Meanings and Practices. Policy Science, 47, 339-344. Whitehead, L., Sá, C., Sarewitz, D., Seidel, M.-D., & Mossman, M. (2017). Cooperative research revolution could answer call to transform science and society. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/co-operative-research-revolution-could-answer-call-to- transform-science-and-society-81447 Wilder, M., & Howlett, M. (2014). The politics of policy anomalies: Briocolage and the hermeneutics of paradigms. Critical Policy Studies, 8(2), 183-202. Wilkie, A., & Michael, M. (2009). Expectation and Mobilisation Enacting Future Users. Science Technology & Human Values, 34(4), 502-522. doi:10.1177/0162243908329188 Williams, S. J., Higgs, Paul, Katz, Stephen. (2012). Neuroculture, active ageing and the older brain': Problems, promises and prospects. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34(1), 64-78. Yanow, D. (2007). Interpretation in policy analysis: On methods and practice. Critical policy analysis, 1(1), 110-122. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Los Angeles: Sage. Zhang, L. C. (2013). Policy Evaluation: A Case Study of Genome Canada Programming 2000– 2011. (M.A. Mster's thesis), University of Saskatchwan, Saskatoon, Canada. Ziman, J. (1984). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix A – Ethics Protocol Ethics Approval

Interview Request email

Hello [name of participant]

I am doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto. My research focuses on the interplay between research and policy. My doctoral research explores this theme through a case study of

243 244 the creation of Genome Canada (1997- 2000) to understand the role of emerging areas of science in shaping research policy.

Attached is the informed consent letter that explains my study. Given your prominent role in genomics research and the formation of Genome Canada, I am hoping you will agree to do an interview. In anticipation of your agreeing, I would like to suggest as a possible date for a telephone interview.

Thank you for considering my request.

Cheers

Amy M. A. (Amy) Lemay Doctoral Candidate Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto 905 650 3857 Informed Consent Letter

(Sent as an attachment with the interview request email, on University of Toronto letterhead.)

Date

Dear [name of participant]

I am writing to invite you to participate in my doctoral research. I am conducting a study of the interplay between research and policy. Through a case study of the creation of Genome Canada (1997 – 2000) I will explore the role of research in shaping research policy. Your role in this study will involve participating in an interview of approximately 60 minutes. If you agree to participate, the interview will be audiotaped and then transcribed. As well, notes will be taken during the interview.

This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Board at the University of Toronto. The research will be carried out in accordance with the University of Toronto ethical standards for research. You are free to decline to answer any question or withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. You can refuse to answer any question during the interview, and a specific explanation is not required. Individuals taking part in the study will not be identified or their

245 answers evaluated. Should you wish to withdraw from the study at any time, data collected up to that point will be destroyed and not included in the findings.

All data will be stored electronically and anonymously, and will be encrypted consistent with University of Toronto data security and encryption standards. The interview recordings will be erased after the transcription is completed and the transcription will be deleted by the end of a three-year period. We see no potential risks to your participation in this study. Should you have any questions regarding your rights as a participant please contact: Office of Research Ethics, University of Toronto, McMurrich Building, 12 Queen's Park Crescent W, 3rd Floor, Phone: 416 946 3273 or [email protected]. If you have any questions about the research itself, please contact Professor Creso Sá at: [email protected].

Please reply with your consent to [email protected]. Upon receipt of your consent, we can schedule a date and time for the interview. Please indicate in your email if you would like to receive a copy of the study results. Thank you in advance for your participation.

Sincerely, M.A. Lemay Doctoral Candidate OISE/UT 252 Bloor St. West Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1V6 905 650 3857

246

Interview Guides

Table A-1. Interview guides.

Taskforce Member Bureaucrat Cabinet Minister Intermediary

Thinking back to your How did you see How did you see How did genomics fit work in the 1990s, Genome Canada Genome Canada into the broader describe what you saw contributing to your contributing to your Science & Technology as the potential or Ministry's policy and Ministry's policy and policy of the time? promise of genomics program priorities? program priorities? research: scientific, technical, social, economic, other

What did you believe What did you believe What did you believe What other areas of the impacts of the impacts of the impacts of science were genomics research genomics research genomics research considered to be would be? would be? would be? strategic priorities for Canada?

How did the key How did genomics fit How did genomics fit What were the messages about into the broader into the broader overarching or key genomics evolve from Science & Technology Science & Technology science and technology the 1st Taskforce report policy of the time? policy of the time? policy objectives that in 1998 through to the genomics and Genome first MC 1998 and then Canada were expected to the successful MC in to advance? 2000?

How did the taskforce How did the key What role did genomics What was the political convince the messages about play in supporting your context at the time that government to make genomics evolve from Department's mandate was conducive to genomics a key funding the 1st Taskforce report and policy objectives? funding genomics priority? in 1998 through to the research and creating first MC 1998 and then Genome Canada? to the successful MC in 2000?

What were the What role did genomics What other areas of What did you believe Taskforce's key play in supporting your science were the impacts of messages to Ministry's mandate and considered to be genomics research government? policy objectives strategic priorities for would be? Canada?

247

What was the political What other areas of What were the How did the key context at the time that science were overarching or key messages about was conducive to considered to be science and technology genomics evolve from funding genomics strategic priorities for policy objectives that the 1st Taskforce report research and creating Canada? genomics and Genome in 1998 through to the Genome Canada? Canada were expected first MC 1998 and then to advance? to the successful MC in 2000? What were the What was the political How did the taskforce overarching or key context at the time that convince the science and technology was conducive to government to make policy objectives that funding genomics genomics a key funding genomics and Genome research and creating priority? Canada were expected Genome Canada? to advance? What was the political Why was the original What were the context at the time that proposal (1998) not Taskforce's key was conducive to supported by Cabinet? messages to funding genomics government? research and creating Genome Canada? Why was the original Why did you support proposal (1998) not the proposal for supported by Cabinet? funding genome research and the creation of Genome Canada? Why did you support What made genomics a the proposal for priority of funding? funding genome research and the creation of Genome Canada? What made genomics a priority of funding? How did the taskforce convince the government to make genomics a key funding priority?

248

Appendix B - List of Data Items

Task Force Data Items

TF-EC-1 Anonymous. email from MRC GTF to Canadian Genome Researchers. February 18, 1998

TF-EC-2 Anonymous. New partnerships and national mobilization mark launch of Genome Canada. Press Release. September 29, 1998

TF-EC-3 Tsui, L. C. letter from L. C. Tsui to A. Carty. December 14, 1998

TF-EC-4 Tsui, L. C. letter L. C. Tsui to J. Chretien. Draft. February 2, 1999

TF-EC-5 Anonymous. Genome Canada Response to CFI Consultation: Proposed Strategy for Genomics. August 17, 1999

TF-EC-6 Tsui, L. C., Carty, A. letter from L. C. Tsui and A. Carty to D. Strangway. November 5, 1999

TF-EC-8 Tsui, L. C. letter from L. C. Tsui to L. Siminovitch. November 11, 1999

TF-EC-9 Tsui, L. C. letter from L. .C Tsui to Members of Parliament. Draft. November 26, 1999

TF-EC-12 Smith, R. letter from R. Smith to L. C. Tsui and A. Carty. December 10, 1999

TF-EC-11 Tsui, L. C., Carty, A. letter from L. C. Tsui and A. Carty to S. Hassler. October 8, 1999

TF-EC-14 Tsui, L. C. letter from L. C. Tsui to Cabinet Ministers. Draft. November 22, 1999

TF-EC-15 Tsui, L. C. letters from L. C. Tsui to E. Goldberg and H. Chouinard. Draft. February 3, 1999

TF-EC-16 Tsui, L. C. letter from L. C. Tsui to M. Chretien. Draft. February 2, 1999

TF-EC-17 Tsui, L. C. Letter from L. C. Tsui to M. Smith. Draft. September 21, 1998

TF-IC-1 Buchanan, J. Memo from J. Buchanan to Genome Task Force Members. Enclosed, and recent activities. April 17, 1998

TF-IC-2 Buchanan, J. memo from J. Buchanan to Genome Task Force Members. Good News! June 26, 1998

TF-IC-4 Anonymous. memo from Genome Canada Task Force to Genome Canada Board of Directors. Strategic Positioning for Genome Canada for the next federal budget. April 16, 1999

249

TF-IC-5 Curry, L. memo from L. Curry to T. Hudson and L. C. Tsui. General Strategy May through mid-June. May 6, 1999

TF-IC-6 Godbout, M. memo from M. Godbout to Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors. Genome Canada. February 2000

TF-ID-1 Anonymous. Genome Task Force Meeting March 5, 1998. Notes: Mission March 5, 1998

TF-ID-2 Anonymous. Follow-up to Do List Post Ottawa meeting of July 28. July 28, 1998

TF-ID-3 Anonymous. Response to Budget 1999. Genome Canada. Draft. February 1999

TF-ID-4 Curry, L. Genome Canada - Strategy Development for Genome Centres. Draft 4. April 15, 1999

TF-ID-5 Sussex Circle Genome Canada. Advice on Organization and Mandate. Draft 2. May 26, 1999

TF-ID-6 Anonymous. Genome Canada Interim Science and Strategy Committee Proposal June 1999

TF-ID-7 Anonymous. Genome Canada. Proposed Organization and Mandate. Draft 7. June 15, 1999

TF-ID-8 Sussex Circle Genome Canada - Elements of a Strategy. August 9, 1999

TF-ID-9 Sussex Circle Slide Deck Outline. August 10, 1999

TF-ID-10 Anonymous. Genome Canada: Ensuring a Place for Canada in Genomics. September 1999 Draft. Slide deck. September 8, 1999

TF-ID-10a Anonymous. Genome Canada: Ensuring a Place for Canada in Genomics. A Presentation to the Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee. Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat. Draft in progress. Slide deck. August 18, 1999

TF-ID-11 Sussex Circle Genome Canada. Current State of the Initiative. Draft for discussion. Slide deck. August 16, 1999

TF-ID-12 Anonymous. Relationship between Genome Canada and Councils Notes from Genome Canada Documents. October 14, 1999

TF-ID-13 Anonymous. Why Do We Need Genome Canada? 1999

TF-ID-15 Anonymous. draft letter to Industry Leaders. December 8, 1999

TF-ID-16 Anonymous. Genome Canada. Statement of Purpose and Intent. Draft 3-1. January 20, 2000

250

TF-ID-17 Anonymous. Funding Agreement. Genome Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as Represented by the Minister of Industry. March 27, 2000

TF-ID-18 Anonymous. Two Responses to Questions posted to CGAT email list. February 1998

TF-ID-19 Anonymous. Notes for T. Hudson and L. C. Tsui. Biotechnology Dinner. April 19, 1999

TF-ID-20 Anonymous. Collaboration between Genome Canada and granting councils. November 2, 1999

TF-ID-21 Anonymous. Memorandum of Understanding between Genome Canada and the Granting Councils. Draft 2. October 14, 1999

TF-ID-22 Anonymous. Where Genome Canada Fits. September 8, 1999

TF-ID-23 Anonymous. Genome Canada. Presentation to Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund. November 12, 1999

TF-ID-24 Anonymous. Genome Canada General By-laws. Draft. February 2000

TF-ID-25 Anonymous. Application for Incorporation of a Corporation without Share Capital under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act. Draft. February 2000

TF-ID-26 MRC. Issues for Genome Canada Board. July 1999

TF-ID-27 Anonymous. Meeting Summary. Exchange of Letters of Intent between Genome Canada and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. November 3, 1999

TF-ID-28 Sussex Circle Intellectual Property Policy. Draft Recommendations from Sussex Circle. August 1999

TF-ID-29a Anonymous. Minutes. Memorandum to Cabinet Investing in Biotechnology. Meeting on Genome Canada - Canadian Institutes of Health Research - Canada Foundation for Innovation. January 8, 1999

TF-ID-29b Anonymous. Personal Notes. Memorandum to Cabinet Investing in Biotechnology. Meeting on Genome Canada - Canadian Institutes of Health Research - Canada Foundation for Innovation. January 8, 1999

TF-M-1 Buchanan, J. Minutes Genome Task Force - Ottawa Meetings. August 26, 1998

TF-M-2 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Transition Team. Conference Call. September 8, 1998

TF-M-3 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada. Conference Call. October 6, 1998

TF-M-4 Anonymous. Agenda. Genome Canada. Conference Call. October 13, 1998

251

TF-M-5 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Task Force. Conference Call. November 3, 1998

TF-M-6 Anonymous. Agenda. Genome Canada. Conference Call. February 23, 1999

TF-M-7 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Task Force Conference Call. April 6, 1999

TF-M-8a Anonymous. Agenda. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors. Conference Call. April 16, 1999

TF-M-8b Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors. Conference Call. April 16, 1999

TF-M-9 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Task Force Conference Call. April 20, 1999

TF-M-10 Curry, L. Agenda Genome Canada Planning Session. May 12, 1999

TF-M-11 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Task Force Conference Call. May 18, 1999

TF-M-12 Buchanan, J. Agenda. Genome Canada Task Force Conference Call. Genome Canada – Génome Canada (in Brief).

TF-M-13 Anonymous. Agenda. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directros Meeting. Toronto, Ontario. June 3, 1999

TF-M-14 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors Meeting. Toronto, Ontario. June 3, 1999

TF-M-15 Anonymous. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors Meeting. July 14, 1999

TF-M-16 Anonymous. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors Meeting. July 20, 1999

TF-M-17 Anonymous. Minutes. Genome Canada Information Meeting. July 27, 1999

TF-M-18 Anonymous. Agenda. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors Meeting. Toronto, Ontario. August 10, 1999

TF-M-19a Anonymous. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors Information Session. Conference Call. August 17, 1999

TF-M-19b Anonymous. Notes from Interim Board Teleconference. Re: Special Opportunities Deck August 17, 1999

TF-M-20 Anonymous. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors Information Session. Conference Call. August 24, 1999

252

TF-M-21 Anonymous. Agenda. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors. Meeting. Toronto, Ontario. September 10, 1999

TF-M-22 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors. Information Session. Conference Call. November 9, 1999

TF-M-24 McCall, M. Notes. Genome Canada Dinner. November 9, 1999

TF-M-25 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors. Information Session. Conference Call. November 16, 1999

TF-M-26 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors. Information Session. Conference Call. November 30, 1999

TF-M-27 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors Information Session. Conference Call. December 7, 1999

TF-M-29 Anonymous. Agenda. MRC Genome Task Force. Consultation Meeting. Montreal, Quebec. March 5, 1998

TF-M-30 Anonymous. Agenda. Genome Canada. Conference Call. May 4, 1999

TF-M-31 Anonymous. Agenda. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors. Information Session. Conference Call. November 23, 1999

TF-M-32 Anonymous. Agenda. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors. Information Session. Conference Call. December 14, 1999

TF-M-33 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors Information Session. Conference Call. January 18, 2000

TF-M-34 Anonymous. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors Information Session. Conference Call. January 11, 2000

TF-M-35 Anonymous. Agenda. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors. Information Session. Conference Call. February 1, 2000

TF-M-40 Buchanan, J. Minutes. Genome Canada Interim Board of Directors Meeting. Ottawa, Ontario. March 2, 1999

TF-R-1 Genome Task Force A New Vision for Canadian Genome Science. A knowledge base for innovation in health, biosciences and industry in the 21st century. Preliminary Report. Draft 5. February 24, 1998

TF-R-2 Genome Task Force Genomics- A Platform for the New Century. Report of the MRC Genome Task Force. June 1998

TF-R-3 Anonymous. Genome Task Force. Slide Deck. June 1998

253

TF-R-5 Tsui, L. C. Genome Canada. Presentation to Standing Committee on Finance. May 5, 1999

TF-R-6 Curry, L. Genome Canada. Planning Session Summary. Draft 4. May 27, 1999

TF-R-7 Hudson, T., Friesen, J. Presentation to The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry. April 21, 1999

TF-R-9 Anonymous. Genome Canada – Génome Canada (in Brief). November 16, 1999

TF-R-10 Genome Task Force. Genome Canada Blueprint and Principles. November 1999

TF-R-11 Genome Canada. Genome Canada Business Plan Discussion Paper November 16, 1999

TF-R-12 Anonymous. Genomics is. Slide Deck August 26, 1998

TF-R-13 Anonymous. The Argument for Basic Research. Slide Deck. January 1999

TF-R-14 Anonymous. Genome Canada. Presentation to Ministere de la Recherche de la Science et de la Technologie. Slide Deck. November 1, 1999

TF-R-15 Anonymous. Genome Canada. Meeting of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Deputy Ministers of Industry, Trade, Science and Technology and Internal Trade. Slide Deck. December 8, 1999

TF-R-16 Genome Task Force Genome Canada. A Platform for the New Century. A Proposal from the MRC Genome Task Force. Slide Deck. August 21, 1998

TF-R-17 Anonymous. Genome Canada. Slide Deck. November 1999

TF-R-18 Anonymous. Genome Canada. Slide Deck. November 1999

TF-R-19 Anonymous. Summary of Activities. November 1999

TF-R-20 Anonymous. Q&A. Genome Canada website. November 25, 1999

TF-R-21 Anonymous. Genome Canada. Investing in Genomics for Canadian Biotechnology and Health. A Proposal from the MRC Genome Task Force. Slide Deck. April 1998

Government Data Items

GV-EC-1 Anonymous. NRC Comments on Summary of Genome Canada Planning Session. May 12, 1999

GV-EC-2 Hayden, M. letter from M. Hayden to C. Scriver. January 7, 1991

GV-EC-4 Friesen, H., Brzustowski, T., Penrod, L., Carty, A. letter from H. Friesen, T. Brzustowski, L. Penrod, A. Carty to R. Worton. September 3, 1996

254

GV-EC-5 Worton, R. letter from R. Worton to J. Manley. November 24, 1999

GV-EC-6 Doolittle, F. letters from F. Doolittle to J. Manley. November 17, 1999

GV-EC-7 Friesen, H. letter from J. Friesen to various Cabinet Ministers. December 9, 1999

GV-EC-8 Jensen, D. letter from D. Jensen to G. Normand. January 13, 2000

GV-EC-10 Worton, R. letter from R. Worton to A. May. May 28, 1990

GV-EC-11 Worton, R. letter from R. Worton to P. Bois. May 28, 1990

GV-EC-12 Slotin, L., Herst, S. Letters between L. Slotin and S. Herst. March 12, 1991

GV-EC-13 Jordan, E., Slotin, L. Letters between E. Jordan and L. Slotin. January 17, 1992

GV-EC-14 Wilson, D. letter from D. Wilson to P. Bois. July 11, 1990

GV-EC-15 O'Brecht, M., letter from M. O'Brecht to H. Friesen. February 14, 1996

GV-EC-16 Worton, R. letter from R. Worton to H. Friesen. February 14, 1996

GV-EC-17 Worton, R. letter from R. Worton to H. Friesen. January 30, 1995

GV-EC-18 Worton, R. letter from R. Worton to H. Friesen. April 4, 1995

GV-EC-19 Slotin, L., Herst, S. letter from L. Slotin to various experts. November 8, 1990

GV-EC-20 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to A. Lippman. October 31, 1990

GV-EC-21 Taylor, M. letter from M. Taylor to J. Banks. November 27, 1990

GV-EC-22 Biddle, F., Bois, P. letters between F. Biddle and P. Bois. January 29, 1991

GV-EC-23 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to R. Church. July 23, 1991

GV-EC-24 Slotin, L., Herst, S. memo from L. Slotin to M. Baker. January 14, 1992

GV-EC-25 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to J. Hamerton. August 29, 1991

GV-EC-26 Wood, S. letter from S. Wood to C. Scriver. October 30, 1990

GV-EC-27 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to J. Hamerton. January 11, 1991

GV-EC-28 Lippman, A. letter from A. Lippman to C. Scriver. November 5, 1990

GV-EC-29 Lippman, A. letter from A. Lippman et al.,.to B. Bouchard. April 4, 1990

GV-EC-31 LePage, M. letters between M. LePage and N. Hagen. June 9, 1999

GV-EC-32 Anonymous. letter from Anonymous to K. Lynch. September 7, 1999

255

GV-EC-33 Hoag, N. letter N. Hoag to J. Manley August 23, 1999

GV-EC-34 Hoag, N. letter from N. Hoag to A. Carty. September 15, 1999

GV-EC-35 Bellini, F. letter from F. Bellini and Dionne to J. Manley. November 5, 1999

GV-EC-36 Anonymous. letter from Anonymous to J. Banigan. October 21, 1999

GV-EC-37 Dennis, M. letter from M. Dennis to J. Chretien and J. Manley. November 2, 1999

GV-EC-38 Bussey, H. letter from H. Bussey to J. Manley. October 20, 1999

GV-EC-39 Anonymous. letter from President Transfert Technologies Commercialization Capital to J. Manley. October 20, 1999

GV-EC-40 Skamene, E. letter from E. Skamene to J. Manley. October 12, 1999

GV-EC-41 Chelsky, D. letter from D. Chelsky to J. Manley. October 12, 1999

GV-EC-42 Farnet, C. letter from C. Farnet to J. Manley. October 12, 1999

GV-EC-43 Anonymous. letter from Anonymous to J. Manley and G. Normand. November 18, 1999

GV-EC-44 Mustard, F. letter from F. Mustard to J. Manley. November 24, 1999

Gv-EC-45 Hamerton, J. letter from J. Hamerton to S. Scriver. January 10, 1991

GV-EC-46 Hamerton, J. letter from J. Hamerton to P. Bois. December 14, 1990

GV-EC-47 Bois, P.letter from P. Bois to J. Hamerton. December 24, 1990

GV-EC-48 Davey, K. letter from K. Davey to C. Scriver. February 28, 1991

GV-EC-49 Taylor, M. letter from M. Taylor to K. Davey. March 1, 1991

GV-EC-50 Taylor, M. memo from M. Taylor to K. Davey. November 8, 1990

GV-EC-51 May, A. letter from A. May to A. Lippman et al., June 12, 1990

GV-EC-52 May, A. letter from A. May to R. Worton. March 13, 1990

GV-EC-53 Worton, R. letter from R. Worton to A. May. January 31, 1990

GV-EC-54 Halliwell, J. memo from J. Halliwell. January 3, 1990

GV-EC-55 Halliwell, J. memo from J. Halliwell to J. Friesen. October 31, 1989

GV-EC-56 Doolittle, F. letter from F. Doolittle to M. Taylor. October 13, 1989

GV-EC-57 Tibelius, K. letter from K. Tibelius to M. Ragan. October 1, 1996

256

GV-EC-58 Simard, R. Letter from R. Simard to A. May. September 7, 1989

GV-EC-59 Oberle, F. InnovAction. Speech by Honourable Frank Oberle. Minister of State for Science and Technology. Financial Post Research and Development Conference. Science and Society: Let's make them compatible. March 24, 1987. Toronto, Ontario. March 24, 1987

GV-EC-60 Mulroney, B. Notes for an Address on Research and Development at the University of Waterloo. March 4, 1987. Waterloo, Ontario March 4, 1987

GV-ED-1 Martin, P.The Budget Speech 1999 Building today for a better tomorrow. February 16, 1999

GV-ED-2 Anonymous. The Budget Chart Book. February 16, 1999

GV-ED-3 Martin, P. The Budget Plan 1999. February 16, 1999

GV-ED-4 Anonymous. Pre-Budget Consultations. November 18, 1999 Standing Committee on Finance

GV-ED-5 Anonymous. Research Funding - Strengthening the Sources of Innovation, Nineteenth Report. June 1999 Standing Committee on Industry

GV-ED-6 Manley, J. Speaking notes for the Honourable John Manley, Minister of Industry. Inaugural Meeting Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. October 13, 1999. Ottawa, Ontario. October 13, 1999

GV-ED-7 Lynch, K. Speaking notes Kevin Lynch for the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. October 14, 1999

Gv-ED-8 Friesen, H. Notes for remarks at Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee Meeting. November 17, 1999. November 17, 1999

GV-ED-9 Anonymous. Budget 2000 Making Canada's Economy more Innovative. February 28, 2000

GV-ED-10 Anonymous. Building a Strong Economy Thru Knowledge and Innovation, federal budget 1999. February 16, 1999

GV-ED-11 Anonymous. Ontario Response to Genome Canada Proposal. November 1999

GV-ED-12 Anonymous. Minding our Future - A Report on Federal Science and Technology - 1997. December 1, 1997

GV-ED-13 U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Mapping Our Genes—Genome Projects- How Big How Fast? OTA-BA-373. April 1999

GV-ED-14 Anonymous. Canadian Genome Analysis and Technology program description. December 14, 1992

257

GV-ED-15 Anonymous. Canada Foundation for Innovation Genomics Strategy. November 27, 1999

GV-ED-16 Standing Committee on Finance FACING THE FUTURE- Challenges and Choices for a New Era. December 1998

GV-ED-17 Clarkson, A. Speech from the Throne. October 12, 1999

GV-ED-18 LeBlanc, R. Speech from the Throne. September 22, 1997

GV-ED-19 Martin, P.The Budget Plan 2000. February 28, 2000

GV-ED-20 Martin, P. The Budget Speech 2000 Better finances, better lives. February 28, 2000

GV-ED-21 Anonymous. Chapter 6 Working Together, Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. January 2000

GV-ED-22 LeBlanc, R. Speech from the Throne. February 27, 1996

GV-ED-23 Martin, P. Budget Speech: Building the future for Canadians. February 18, 1997

GV-ED-24 Standing Committee on Finance KEEPING THE BALANCE- Security and Opportunity for Canadians. December 15, 1997

GV-ED-25 Leblanc, R. Speech from the Throne. January 18, 1994

GV-ED-26 The Liberal Party of Canada Creating Opportunity for Canada: The Liberal Plan for Canada. September 15, 1993

GV-ED-28 The Liberal Party of Canada Securing Our Future Together: Liberal Plan 1997. April 20, 1997

GV-ED-29 Martin, P. The Budget in Brief. February 22, 1994

GV-ED-30 Anonymous. Budget 1997: The Budget Plan February 18, 1997

GV-ED-31 Anonymous. Budget 1997: Canada Foundation for Innovation. February 18, 1997

GV-ED-32 Anonymous. Budget 1997: The Government's Job Strategy. February 18, 1997

GV-ED-33 Martin, P. The Budget Plan 1998: Building Canada for the 21st Century-Strong Economy & Secure Society. February 24, 1998

GV-ED-34 Martin, P. The Budget Speech: Building Canada for the 21st Century-Strong Economy & Secure Society. February 24, 1998

GV-ED-35 Anonymous. Budget 1998: The Canadian Opportunities Strategy. February 1998

GV-ED-37 Anonymous. Building a More Innovative Economy November 1994

258

GV-ED-38 Campbell, K. Making Government Work for Canada. A Taxpayer's Agenda. October 1993

GV-ED-39 Chrétien, J. Address by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. October 13, 1999

GV-ED-40 Anonymous. Capturing the Advantage - Agricultural Biotechnology in the New Millennium. June 2, 1998 Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

GV-EC-50 Taylor, M. memo from M. Taylor to K. Davey. November 8, 1990

GV-ED-61 Anonymous. A New Framework for Economic Policy Finance. October 1994

GV-GB-1 Anonymous. NRC Genome Sciences Strategic Initiative Program Proposal Update. June 17, 1998

GV-GB-2 Cardin, G. MRC Briefing Note Genomics Research in Canada. July 20, 1998

GV-GB-3 Anonymous. Program Announcement MRC Genomics Research Program. July 16, 1998 Medical Research Council of Canada

GV-GB-4 Anonymous. Comparison NRC Genomic Strategic Initiative and MRC Genome Task Force proposal. August 1998

GV-GB-5 Anonymous. Genome Canada Initiative: Genome Taskforce/MRC - NRC Discussion Document. August 13, 1998

GV-GB-6 Anonymous. NRC's Genomics Initiative, slide deck. November 1999

GV-GB-9 Anonymous. NSERC Update for Genome Canada. April 16, 1999

GV-GB-10 Cardin, G. MRC Briefing Note Genomics Research in Canada. MRC's Genome Initiatives April 9, 1999

GV-GB-13 Anonymous. Canadian Genomics Program. September 1997

GV-GB-14 Anonymous. NRC Centre for Functional Genomics. October 1997

GV-GB-15 Anonymous. A NRC Genome Science Program Strategy and Program Development Outline. February 2, 1998

GV-GB-16 Anonymous. NRC Genome Sciences Strategic Initiative: Status. April 1998

GV-GB-17 Anonymous. NRC Genome Sciences Strategic Initiative Progress Report. April 20, 1998

GV-GB-18a Anonymous. The National Research Council's Biotechnology Program - Genome Sciences Strategic Initiative (external). May 29, 1998

GV-GB-18b Anonymous. NRC Genome Sciences Strategic Initiative (internal). May 29, 1998

259

GV-GB-20 Barnes, D. NRC New Initiatives Genomic Sciences & Health Job Description Manager. May 4, 1999

GV-GB-21 Anonymous. Investing in life's building blocks. August 1998 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

GV-GB-22 Nishikawa, N. Biotechnology in Agriculture and Agri-Food. A Consultation for the Renewal of the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy. Slide Deck. n.d.

GV-GB-25 Atkinson, R. Problematique Renewing the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy (Draft). July 31, 1997

GV-GB-27 Anonymous. Biotechnology in Agriculture and Agri-Food. A Consultation Document for the Renewal of the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy. February 1998

GV-GB-28 Anonymous. The 1998 Canadian Biotechnology Strategy: An Ongoing Renewal Process. August 6, 1998 Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Secretariat

GV-GB-29 Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Task Force. Renewal of the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy. Roundtable Consultation Document February 1998

GV-GB-33 Anonymous. Leading in the next millennium Sixth Report. April 6, 1998 National Biotechnology Advisory Committee

GV-GB-34a/b Anonymous. Biotechnology Deputy Ministers Coordinating Committee. November 10, 1998

GV-GB-35 Insight Canada Research Report on an evaluation of the Canadian Genome Analysis and Technology Program. February 13, 1996 CGAT Program Evaluation Steering Committee

GV-GB-36 Anonymous. General Meeting of the CGAT Grantees: Agenda and Participants List. April 6, 1995

GV-GB-38 Anonymous. CGAT Review of Phase I (1992-1997) and A Plan for Phase II (1997-2000) Summary. February 20, 1996

GV-GB-39 Price Waterhouse Industry Canada Review of the National Biotechnology Strategy Final Report. November 20, 1997

GV-IC-1 Ragan, M. email from M. Ragan to NRC Colleagues, MRC Genome Task Force. February 20, 1998

GV-IC-2 Carty, A. memo from A. Carty to M. Ragan, Medical Research Council of Canada Genome Task Force. March 6, 1998

GV-IC-3 Atkinson, R. memo from R. Atkinson to Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Secretariat. Genome Task Force. April 20, 1998

260

GV-IC-4 Thomas, D. memo from D. Thomas to A. Carty. Genome Proposal July 3, 1999

GV-IC-5 Friesen, H. letter from H. Friesen to A. Carty. July 6, 1998

GV-IC-6 Desrochers, M.J. memo from M. J. Desrochers to G. Adams, R. Boyd, K. Karth, I. Smith. Meeting with MRC. July 29, 1998

GV-IC-7 Smith, W.A. memo from B. Smith to Peter. Option 4 Genome Canada. August 11, 1998

GV-IC-8 Friesen, H. letter from H. Friesen to T. Brzustowski. August 21, 1998

GV-IC-9 Smith, W.A. memo from W. A. Smith to W. Davidson. Governance Structure for CNF. December 21, 1998

GV-IC-11 Carty, A. memo from A. Carty to P. Hackett. May 11, 1999

GV-IC-12 LePage, M. memo from M. LePage to C. Nymark. September 17, 1999

GV-IC-13 Nymark, C. memo from C. Nymark to K. Lynch, J. Banigan. October 12, 1999

GV-IC-14 Renaud, M. letter from M. Renaud to A. Carty. November 4, 1999

GV-IC-15 Botham, R. email from R. Botham, CFI funding for genomics research facilities. November 16, 1999

GV-IC-16 Nymark, C. letter from C. Nymark to H. Wong. November 24, 1999

GV-IC-17 Banigan, J. memo from J. Banigan to K. Lynch, Genome Canada status report and proposed legal signatories to incorporate Genome Canada. n.d.

GV-IC-20 Botham, R. email from R. Botham to M. McCuaig-Johnston and D. Watters. CFI funding for genomics research facilities. November 18, 1999

GV-IC-21 Carty, A. memo from A. Carty to J. Lyrette and R. VanKoughnett. Bioinformatics and Genomics. December 5, 1997

GV-IC-24 Cooper, D. email from D. Cooper to P. Hackett and B. Smith. Genome- International Major Initiatives. September 16, 1998

GV-IC-25 Slotin, L., Herst, S. letter from L. Slotin to J. Hopkins. June 28, 1990

GV-IC-26 Slotin, L., memo from L. Slotin to P. Bois. August 13, 1990

GV-IC-27 Slotin, L., letter from L. Slotin to C. Scriver. November 16, 1990

GV-IC-28 Bois, P. letter from P. Bois to P. Leduc. May 24, 1991

GV-IC-29 Doolittle, F., Scriver, C., Slotin, L. letters between F. Doolittle, C. Scriver, L. Slotin. July 30, 1991

261

GV-IC-30 Perron, P. letter from P. Perron to P. Bois. April 11, 1990

GV-IC-32 Hopkins, J. letter from J. Hopkins to L. Slotin. November 6, 1990

GV-IC-33 Leduc, P. letter from P. Leduc to P. Bois. November 6, 1990

GV-IC-34 Bois, P. letter from P. Bois to P. Leduc. October 17, 1990

GV-IC-35 Smith, M. letter from M. Smith to C. Scriver. October 1, 1990

GV-IC-36 Slotin, L. letter from L. Slotin to M. Taylor. September 27, 1990

GV-IC-37 Taylor, M. letter from M. Taylor to L. Slotin. September 25, 1990

GV-IC-38 Bois, P. letter from P. Bois to C. Scriver. September 6, 1990

GV-IC-39 Bois, P. letter from P. Bois to G. Julien. August 29, 1990

GV-IC-40 May, A. letter from A. May to P. Bois. July 18, 1990

GV-IC-42 Applegarth, D. letter from D. Applegarth to P. Bois. December 28, 1990

GV-IC-45 Deleury, E. letter from E. Deleury to L. Slotin. March 21, 1991

GV-IC-46 Doolitte, F. letter from F. Doolittle to L. Slotin. January 28, 1991

GV-IC-47 Cedergren, R. letter from R. Cedergren to C. Scriver. January 22, 1991

GV-IC-48 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to A. Lippman. January 21, 1991

GV-IC-49 Slotin, L. memo from L. Slotin to Sylvie (Ministers Office). October 19, 1990

GV-IC-50 Friesen, H. letter from J. Friesen to L. Slotin. October 29, 1991

GV-IC-51 Slotin, L. letter from L. Slotin to C. Scriver. October 22, 1991

GV-IC-52 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to J. Drouin. October 2, 1991

GV-IC-53 Drouin, J. letter from J. Drouin to C. Scriver. October 1, 1991

GV-IC-54 Drouin, J. letter from J. Drouin to M. Taylor. September 17, 1991

GV-IC-55 Slotin, L. letter from L. Slotin to L. Dandurand. August 27, 1991

GV-IC-56 Hawkins, D. letter from D. Hawkins to P. Morand. August 23, 1991

GV-IC-57 Morand, P. letter from P. Morand to D. Hawkins. August 13, 1991

GV-IC-58 Morand, P. letter from P. Morand to P. Bois. May 16, 1991

GV-IC-59 Morand, P. letter from P. Morand to W. Winegard. May 16, 1991

262

GV-IC-60 Slotin, L. memo from L. Stotin to P. Bois. May 14, 1991

GV-IC-61 Leduc, P. letter from P. Leduc to P. Bois. May 7, 1991

GV-IC-62 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to L. Slotin. May 12, 1991

GV-IC-63 Friesen, H. letter from H. Friesen to P. Morand. May 11, 1992

GV-IC-64 Worton, R. letter from R. Worton to P. Morand. May 27, 1992

GV-IC-65 Morand, P. letter from P. Morand to H. Friesen. June 4, 1992

GV-IC-66 Worton, R. letter from R. Worton to H. Friesen. May 12, 1992

GV-IC-67 Friesen, H. memo from H. Friesen to B. Bouchard. March 10, 1992

GV-IC-68 Slotin, L. letter from L. Slotin to L. Dandurand. February 18, 1992

GV-IC-69 Dandurand, L. letter from L. Dandurand to L. Slotin. February 12, 1992

GV-IC-70 Slotin, L. letter from L. Slotin to J. Friesen. November 6, 1991

GV-IC-71 Rothchild, H. telephone message from H. Rothchild to C. Scriver. May 13, 1992

GV-IC-72 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to R. Worton. May 25, 1992

GV-IC-74 Slotin, L. memo from L. Slotin to R. Worton, C. Scriver, H. Friesen. May 15, 1992

GV-IC-75 Friesen, H. memo from H. Friesen to C. Scriver. April 2, 1992

GV-IC-76 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to J. Drouin. September 30, 1991

GV-IC-77 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to J. Drouin. September 26, 1991

GV-IC-78 Scriver, C. memo from C. Scriver to F. Doolittle M. Smith. August 8, 1991

GV-IC-79 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to B. Knoppers and C. Laberge. January 21, 1991

GV-IC-80 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to experts-consultants. December 19, 1990

GV-IC-81 Scriver, C. letter from C. Scriver to L. Slotin. July 18, 1991

GV-IC-82 Slotin, L., Scriver, C. letters between L. Slotin and C. Scriver. October 1, 1990

GV-IC-83 Worton, R. memo from R. Worton to R. Cook-Deegan re Canadian section of book. July 13, 1992

263

GV-IC-84 Desrochers, M.J. memo from M. Desrochers. Genomics & Health Proposals Consultation Committee. May 27, 1999

GV-IC-85 McLeod, D. memo from D. McLeod to M. LePage. August 10, 1999

GV-IC-86 Brochu, M. letter from M. Brochu to L. Slotin. August 19, 1991

GV-IC-87 Dandurand, L. letter from L. Dandurand to L. Slotin. August 19, 1991

GV-IC-88 Hawkins, D. letter from D. Hawkins to P. Morand. August 6, 1991

GV-IC-89 Taylor, M. memo from M. Taylor to Committee on Collaborative Research Initiatives. Proposal for a Genome Program in Canada. June 17, 1991

GV-IC-90 Lloyd, N. memo from N. Lloyd to P. Morand. May 8, 1991

GV-IC-91 Taylor, M. memo from M. Taylor to N. Lloyd. April 18, 1991

GV-IC-92 Julien, G. memo from G. Julien to M. Taylor. March 12, 1991

GV-IC-93 Taylor, M. letter from M. Taylor to C. Scriver. March 8, 1991

GV-IC-94 Halliwell, J. memo from J. Halliwell. Human/Biological Genome R&D. July 31, 1990

GV-IC-95 Halliwell, J. memo from J. Halliwell to A. May. Human/Biological Genome R&D. June 22, 1990

GV-IC-96 Halliwell, J. Memo from J. Halliwell to Federal representatives. Genome Project - Strategy Meeting with Proponents. January 3, 1990

GV-IC-97 May, A. letter from A. May to P. Bois, P. Perron, P. Leduc, E. Dickson. December 1, 1989

GV-ID-1 Hudson, T., Friesen, J. House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry - Sustaining Canada as an Innovative Society: An action agenda. April 21, 1999

GV-ID-2 Storer, A., Levac, D. Briefing Notes for Dr. Carty for Genome Canada Meeting May 12, 1999

GV-ID-3 Carty, A. House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry - Sustaining Canada as an Innovative Society: An action agenda. May 27, 1999

GV-ID-4 Anonymous. Overview of Genomics Activities within Environment Canada. June 1, 1999

GV-ID-5 Anonymous. AAFC Genomic Research Initiative. May 27, 1999

GV-ID-6 Anonymous. Natural Resources Canada - Canadian Forest Service Genomics Research Initiative under the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy. June 1999

264

GV-ID-7 Anonymous. NRC New Initiatives in Genome Sciences and Health Related Research Program. June 3, 1999

GV-ID-8 Anonymous. Industry Canada Forward Agenda Initiatives. December 9, 1999

GV-ID-9 Anonymous. Questions and Answers. Genome Canada. Budget 2000 Briefing Book. Draft. February 22, 1999

GV-ID-10 Nymark, C. A Model for Governance in the 21st Century - Creating Genome Canada. February 2, 2001

GV-ID-11 Tsui, L.C. House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. May 5, 1999

GV-ID-12 Anonymous. Consideration of NRC's Strategic Directions and Initiatives. October 1997

GV-ID-17 Anonymous. Agenda and Minutes Groupe de coordination des initiatives strategiques. July 9, 1998

GV-ID-19 Anonymous. Briefing Notes NRC Strategic Initiatives. August 30, 1999

GV-ID-20 Anonymous. Canadian Biotechnology Strategy. Results-based Management and Accountability Framework. Final Draft 10. n.d.

GV-ID-21 Anonymous. CGAT Program Presentation - Meeting of Heads of Partner Agencies. March 12, 1996

GV-ID-22 Tibelius, K. Options for the Future of CGAT August 28, 1996

GV-ID-23 Anonymous. CGAT Management Committee Meeting September 5, 1996

GV-ID-24 Siminovitch, L. A genomics vision for Ontario April 1999

GV-ID-25 Anonymous. Ontario Genomics Initiative Task Force Report. June 1999

GV-ID-26 Anonymous. NRC Strategic Initiatives Slide Deck. February 1999

GV-ID-27 Friesen, H. The MRC and the Canadian Genome Analysis and Technology Program. Speech at Genome Canada 95: CGAT General Meeting. Toronto, Canada. April 6, 1995

GV-ID-28 Campbell, W. Briefing note to P. Perron: The Human Genome Mapping and Sequencing Project. April 11, 1990

GV-ID-29 Slotin, L. Project summary (draft) Human Genome Project. July 23, 1990

GV-ID-30 Rolleston, F. Human Genome Activity in Canada. February 1991

GV-ID-32 Anonymous. CGAT Program Evaluation. March 12, 1996

265

GV-ID-33 Bernstein, A. Canadian Genome Initiatives. November 22, 1990

GV-ID-34 Scriver, C. Minutes of Inter-Council Human Genome Advisory Committee. October 11, 1990

GV-ID-35 Scriver, C. Agenda 1st meeting Inter-Council Human Genome Advisory Committee. October 4, 1991

GV-ID-36 Lippman, A. comments to Inter-Council Human Genome Advisory Committee. January 8, 1991

GV-ID-37 Anonymous. Invited Experts. Inter-Council Human Genome Advisory Committee Meeting January 8, 1991

GV-ID-38 Morrison, C. comments to Inter-Council Human Genome Advisory Committee. January 4, 1991

GV-ID-39 Scriver, C. Should there be a Canadian Genome Program? December 18, 1990

GV-ID-40 Scriver, C. Minutes of the Inter-council Human Genome Advisory Committee. November 27, 1990

GV-ID-41 LaFleche, P. Canadian Genome Research Program - Draft. March 9, 1991

GV-ID-42 Scriver, C. Consultation with J. Banks and H. Bussey. January 22, 1991

GV-ID-43 Scriver, C. Advisory Committee Canadian Genome Program Material for discussion on February 4. January 21, 1991

GV-ID-44 Cavoukian, A. Privacy Issues and Genomics October 25, 1991

GV-ID-45 Taylor, M. memo from M. Taylor to Molecular & Development Genetics GCS, Biotechnology Strategic Panel, Other Individuals. Proposal for a Genome Program for Canada August 20, 1991

GV-ID-46 Slotin, L. Canadian Human Genome Program - Revised Draft. July 11, 1991

GV-ID-47 Slotin, L. draft summary of IHGAC proposal (internal) May 10, 1991 GV-ID-47 LAC 2015 365 May 10, 1991

GV-ID-48 Scriver, C., Berstein, A., Cedergren, R., Deleury, E., Doolittle, F., Matheson, A., McGhee, J., Sankoff, D., Smith, M., Tanguay, R., Worton, R. Report from the Inter-Council Human Advisory Committee. April 4, 1991

GV-ID-49 Anonymous. Draft Terms of Reference Management Committee Human Genome Program. May 11, 1992

GV-ID-50 Anonymous. Draft Memorandum to Cabinet Canadian Human Genome Program. January 31, 1992

266

GV-ID-51 Anonymous. A Genome Program for Canada. November 14, 1991

GV-ID-53 Worton, R. Genome Committee: Thoughts on research for a 'Genome Canada' program. November 23, 1990

GV-ID-55 Smith, M. letter from M. Smith to W. Duncan. July 25, 1991

GV-ID-56 Anonymous. Minutes of meeting between L. Slotin and National Cancer Institute of Canada. July 17, 1991

GV-ID-58 Anonymous. Health Canada Genomics Research. May 28, 1999

GV-ID-59 Anonymous. Proposal for Inter-council Interdepartmental Partnership Initiative: The Ethical, Legal, Social and Political Issues in Genomics Research and the the Introduction of New Biotechnologies. April 16, 1999 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

GV-ID-60 LePage, M. Outline for a Tri-Council Genome Initiative - Draft for Discussion & Genome Canada Estimated Budget 1999-2000. April 15, 1999

GV-ID-61 Anonymous. Industry Canada's Budget Initiatives. January 8, 2000

GV-ID-62 Anonymous. Report on Plans and Priorities - National Research Council of Canada: 1999-2000 Estimates January 1999

GV-ID-63 Anonymous. Genome Canada - Ensuring a Place for Canada. Presentation to DMDB. October 13, 1999

GV-ID-64 Davey, K. Genome Research: Policy Issues K. Davey. November 14, 1990

GV-ID-66 Halliwell, J. Genome Canada: Summary Report - January 5, 1990 Meeting. January 10, 1990

GV-ID-67 Tibelius, K. MRC Standing Committee on Science and Research- March 6-7, 1996 Agenda Item #9 Canadian Genome Analysis and Technology (CGAT) Program. March 6, 1996

GV-ID-68 Halliwell, J. Genome Project - Discussion Paper on Funding Strategies and Issues. January 3, 1990

GV-ID-69 Halliwell, J. Federal Consortium Strategy Meeting - Human Genome Project: Memo, Preliminary Agenda, Background Paper. December 18, 1989

GV-ID-70 Halliwell, J. Briefing: Human/Complex Genome Program. November 28, 1989

GV-ID-71a Barnes, C. R. Note to CORB and GSCs regarding Long-term Health of the Discipline: Suggested Guidelines. November 6, 1989

GV-ID-71b Rand, R.P. Evolving Areas of Research and Activities in the Life Sciences. One Perspective. November 1989.

267

GV-ID-71c Halliwell, J. The Canadian Experience with Large Concerted Projects/Programs in the Natural Sciences and Engineering. November 28, 1989

GV-ID-72 Nymark, C. A Model for Governance in the 21st Century: Creating Genome Canada (slide deck). January 2001

STP-1 Anonymous. Science and Technology for the New Century. A Federal Strategy. March 1996

STP-2 Brassard, D. Science and Technology: The New Federal Policy. Background Paper BP-414E. April 1996 Library of Parliament, Parliamentary Research Branch.

STP-3 Anonymous. Highlights of Departmental S&T Action Plans in Response to Science and Technology for the New Century March 1996

STP-4 Anonymous. Fisheries and Oceans Action Plan: Science and Technology for the New Century. March 1996

STP-5 National Advisory Board on Science and Technology Healthy Wealthy and Wise A Framework for an Integrated Federal Science and Technology Strategy April 1995

STP-6 Industry, Science and Technology Canada. Evaluation Study of the National Biotechnology Strategy (NBS). October 17, 1991

STP-7 Anonymous. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Action Plan. Science and Technology for the New Century. March 1996

STP-9 Anonymous. Building Momentum. A Report on Federal Science and Technology - 1998. May 1999

STP-10 Fortier, P., Beaudry, D., Brown, M., Brzustowski, T., Douville, R., Levy, J., Miller, R., Murray, J., Simson, C. Public Investments in University Research- Reaping the Benefits. Report of the Expert Panel on the Commercialization of University Research. May 4, 1999 Advisory Council on Science and Technology

STP-11 Auditor General of Canada Chapter 22. The Federal Science and Technology Strategy: A Review of Progress. Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons. December 1998

STP-12 Anonymous. Prosperity through Competitiveness. June 13, 1905

STP-13 Anonymous. InnovAction. The Canadian Strategy for Science and Technology. June 19, 1905 Ministry of State Science and Technology Canada.

STP-14 Secretariat for Science and Technology Review Building a Federal Science and Technology Strategy. June 1994 Industry Canada

268

STP-16 Council of Science and Technology Advisors Science Advice for Government Effectiveness (SAGE). A Report of the Council of Science and Technology Advisors. May 5, 1999

STP-17 Council of Science and Technology Advisors Building Excellence in Science and Technology (BEST). The Federal Roles in Performing Science and Technology. A Report of the Council of Science and Technology Advisors. October 1999

Media Data Items

MD-5 Anonymous 1995. Canadian human genome researchers seeking private sector funding as work to complete sequencing pushes forward. Research Money. 9(9)

MD-8 Anonymous 1995. Feds face selling challenge with S&T strategy as cynicism mounts over delays and criticism of component parts emerge. Research Money. 9(20)

MD-13 Marshall, E., 1996. Funding crisis grip genome research. Science. 273:867

MD-14 Anonymous 1996. Genomic network proposed to continue work started under Canadian genome analysis and technology program. Research Money. 10(18)

MD-16 Cohen, J., 1997. Biotechnology- The Genomics Gamble. Science. 275(53010:767- 772

MD-17 Marshall, E., 1997. Intellectual Property- Companies Rush to Patent DNA. Science. 275(5301):780-781

MD-19 Cohen, J., 1997. Biotechnology - Hype Surrounds Genomics Inc. Science. 275(5301):770

MD-21 Anonymous 1997. Lobbying pays off as phase iii funding for networks of centres of excellence announced in federal budget. Research Money. 11(3)

MD-22 Anonymous 1997. Research takes centre stage with federal budget measures targeting research infrastructure, NCEs and IRAP. Research Money. 11(4)

MD-23 Henderson, M., 1997. How it looks to me. Editorial. Research Money. 11(10)

MD-24 Anonymous 1997. Canada Seeks to Revive Genome Project. Science. 277(5324):303

MD-26 Anonymous 1997. Increased spending on s&t and basic research must line up along with other government priorities. Research Money. 11(12)

MD-27 Anonymous 1997. Throne speech and industry minister's replay augur well for increased S&T spending as liberals enter second term. Research Money. 11(16)

MD-28 Henderson, M., 1997. How It Looks To me. Editorial. Research Money. 11(18)

269

MD-29 Anonymous 1997. MRC's Friesen issues clarion call to increase funding for basic medical research, or Canada will suffer grave consequences. Research Money. 11(18)

MD-31 Anonymous 1997. New sequencing centre and blue-chip task force raise prospects of revived national genome research effort. Research Money. 11(19)

MD-32 Anonymous 1997. Finance standing committee joins chorus of calls for long-term increases to granting councils. Research Money. 11(20)

MD-34 Anonymous 1998. Restoration of granting council cuts viewed as positive first step to building basic research capacity. Research Money. 12(4)

MD-38 Henderson, M., 1998. How it looks to me. Editorial. Research Money. 12(9)

MD-39 Anonymous 1998. Task force set to deliver strategy that could place Canada at forefront of genome research. Research Money. 12(9)

MD-40 Kondro, W., 1998. Canada Proposes $175 Million Effort. Science. 281:20

MD-42 Anonymous 1998. Genome task force scores first victory with MRC decision to provide $25 million over five years. Research Money. 12(11)

MD-43 Anonymous 1998. Genome Research gets funding boost. St. Catharines Standard. July 17, 1998

MD-45 Anonymous 1998. Federal Government Releases New Biotechnology Strategy. University of Calgary August 6, 1998 http://people.ucalgary.ca/~pubconf/Regulatory/cbs.html

MD-50 Anonymous 1998. Genome Canada moves ahead to merge proposal with those of NRC and Ag. Can. Research Money. 12(14)

MD-52 Anonymous 1998. Agriculture department's genome research proposal targets key areas where Canada can excel. Research Money. 12(15)

MD-53 Anonymous 1998. Patent lock by large firms putting squeeze on agbiotech players moving research to marketplace. Research Money. 12(11)

MD-55 Anonymous 1998. Healthcare in Canada. Health Care in Canada October 1998 http://www.pagebleu.com/stratcom/level1/care1098.htm

MD-59 Anonymous 1998. Genome Canada learning the rules of the game while pitching proposal for integrated genomics. Research Money. 12(20)

MD-60 Anonymous 1998. Decision time looming for S&T proposals lobbying to make budget priority list. Research Money. 12(20)

MD-61 Friesen, H., 1998. The Medical Research Council of Canada: Integrating research to Canada’s health care system. Nature Medicine. 4(12): 1353-1355.

270

MD-62 Bryden, J., 1999. R&D to get $1B boost in budget. Ottawa Citizen February 12, 1999 http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/990212/2270 J I 1.hb11!

MD-63 Anonymous 1999. Budget backs genome research with $55 million over three years. Research Money. 13(3)

MD-64 Anonymous 1999. Federal budget delivers massive $2-billion increase to S&T and innovation over three years. Research Money. 13(3)

MD-65 Anonymous 1998. Genome research scores big in CFI competition. Research Money. 12(6)

MD-66 Anonymous 1999. Ontario genome strategy taking shape. Research Money. 13(10)

MD-67 Anonymous 1999. Optimism pervades renewed push for genome Canada funding. Research Money. 13(10)

MD-68 Anonymous 1999. Cross-country consultation gets underway to sell expert panel on commercialization of university research. Research Money. 13(14)

MD-69 Anonymous 1999. Genome Canada putting final touches on pitch for $500m in federal funding. Research Money. 13(14)

MD-71 Hoyle, B., 1999. Giga-speed bioinformatics to power Genome Canada. Nature Biotechnology 17:950

MD-72 Anonymous 1999. NRC's bioinformatics network gives lift to Genome Canada. Research Money. 13(16)

MD-74 Anonymous 1999. Preparation for Genome Canada moves into high gear as backers taste victory backers taste victory. Research Money. 13(19)

MD-75 Anonymous 1999. CF rolls ahead with new genomics awards. Research Money. 13(20)

MD-76 Carty, A., & Tsui, L.C., 2000. Genome Canada update. Nature Biotechnology. 18:129

MD-80 Legault, M., & Munro, M., 2000. Gene hunters extraordinaire- Lap-Chee Tsu’s discovery. National Post. March 16, 2000

MD-83 Anonymous 2000. Genome Canada scores with $160 million in year-end money to establish national research program. Research Money. 14(2)

MD-85 Brown, C., 2000. Canada hopes to climb the DNA ladder to success. Journal of the Canadian Medical Association. 162(10):1478-1479

MD-88 Anonymous 1999. Throne speech and Prime Minister's response raise profile of S&T and university research to new heights. Research Money. 13(16)

271

MD-91 Anonymous 2000. Ontario invests $75 million in genomics research. Hospital for Children April 5, 2000 http://www.sickkids.ca/AboutSickKids/Newsroom/Past- News/2000/Ontario%20invests%20$75%20million%20in%20genomics%20resear ch.html

MD-92 Anonymous 1999. Provinces gearing up with complimentary genome projects. Research Money. 13(14)

MD-94 Henderson, M., 1997. How it looks to me. Editorial. Research Money. 11(16)

MD-95 Koshland, Jr., D. E., 1989. The cystic fibrosis gene story. Science. 245(4922):1029

MD-96 Holden, C., 1996. Canada Joins Genome Project. Science. 256:1514

MD-97 Kelly, E. H., 1990. The human genome initiative a different type of research. FASEB Journal. 4:14-15

MD-99 Spurgeon, D., 1992. Canada commits money for human genome research. Nature. 357:428

MD-102 Maddox, J., 1991. The case for the human genome. Nature. 352:11-14

MD-103 Strauss, S., 1991. Canada weighs joining genetic project U.S. to spend $3-billion in effort to map all components of DNA code. Globe and Mail. October 21, 1991

MD-104 Lippman, A., 1990. Is genome mapping the way to improve Canadians health. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 81:397-398

MD-108 Anonymous 1998. Fundamental disagreement over thrust of S&T strategy colours Auditor General's criticism of its implementation. Research Money. 12(20)

MD-129 Henderson, M., 1999. How it looks to me. Editorial. Research Money. 13(3)

Third Party Data Items

TPD-1 Anonymous. April 28, 1998. Opportunities and Challenges for application of biotechnology in the agri-food sector. Canadian Agri-Food Research Council.

TPD-3 Archambault, E., Gingras, Y., Godin, B., Valileres, F. August 1, 1991. Characterization of Genomics in Canada. Observatoire des sciences et des technologies.

TPD-4 McCann, P. November 24, 1999. House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance Pre-budget Public Hearings.

TPD-6 Goujon, P. 2001. From Biotechnology to Genomes: the meaning of the double helix. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.

272

TPD-7 Golding, B. December 28, 1990. Comments for January 8, 1991 Inter-Council Human Genome Advisory Committee. York University.

TPD-8 McAlpine, P. August 2, 1991. comments for January 8, 1991 Inter-Council Human Genome Advisory Committee. Federation of Biological Sciences.

TPD-11 Anonymous. June 21, 1999. A Framework for Science and Technology Advice- Principles and Guidelines for the Effective Use of Science and Technology Advice in Government Decision Making. Council of Science and Technology Advisors.

TPD-12 Anonymous. September 1, 1997. Sustaining Canada as an innovative society- an action agenda. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

TPD-14 Doolittle, F., Friesen, J., Smith, M., Worton, R. October 11, 1989. Mapping and sequencing the human genome a program for Canada.

TPD-16 Scriver, C. August 3, 1991. Why we should have a genome program in Canada. Inter-council Human Genome Advisory Committee.

TPD-17 Anonymous. January 1, 1990. Understanding Our Genetic Inheritance. Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Energy.

TPD-18 Collins, F., & Galas, D. (1993). A new five-year plan for the US Human Genome Project. Science, 262(5130): 43-46.

TPD-19 Collins. F., Patrinos, A., Jordan, E., Chakravarti, A., Gesteland, r., Walters, L. October 23, 1998. New Goals for the U.S. Human Genome Project- 1998 –2003. Science. 282: 682-689.

TPD-20 Watson, J. August 4, 1991. The Human Genome Project- Past, Present, and Future. Science. 248: 44-48.

TPD-23 Powell, D. March 9, 1990. How Is Basic Science Faring in Canada? Science. 247: 1172.

TPD-24 Cook-Deegan, R. M. (1994). The gene wars: Science, politics, and the human genome. New York: WW Norton & Company.

TPD-25 Hamerton, J. January 10, 1991. A Canadian Genome Project - personal view. University of Manitoba.

TPD-26 Church, R. August 5, 1991. documents from R. Church to D. Hawkins and C. Scriver. University of Calgary.

TPD-27 Knopper, B., Laberge, C. December 1, 1990. Social Geography of Human Genome Mapping.

TPD-28 Morgan, K. January 3, 1991. comments for January 8, 1991. Inter-Council Human Genome Advisory Committee. McGill University.

273

TPD-29 Szathmary, E. January 7, 1991. comments for January 8, 1991 Inter-Council Human Genome Advisory Committee.

TPD-30 Morrison, C. August 6, 1991. comments for January 8, 1991 Inter-Council Human Genome Advisory Committee. Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

TPD-31 Walker, R. January 7, 1991. comments for January 8, 1991 Inter-Council Human Genome Advisory Committee. Huntington Society of Canada.

TPD-32 Strachan, G. January 7, 1991. comments for January 8, 1991 Inter-Council Human Genome Advisory Committee. Allelix.

TPD-33 Anonymous. October 31, 1999. Briefing Document Genome Canada Centre for Comparative and Microbial genomics. Atlantic Canada Genome Task Force.

TPD-34 Anonymous. August 7, 1991. Long range plan for multinational A. thaliana genome project. United States National Science Foundation.

TPD-35 Anonymous. September 9, 1996. Canadian Genome Network Call for Proposal. Canadian Genome Analysis and Technology Program.

TPD-36 Spino, M. October 1, 1996. letter from Michael Spino to Ford Doolittle. Apotex.

TPD-37 Anonymous. October 2, 1996. CGAT Network Proposal. Canadian Genome Analysis and Technology Program.

TPD-38 Caufield, T. August 8, 1991. letter from Tim Caufield to MELSI CGAT Colleagues. University of Alberta.

TPD-39 Doolittle, F. October 11, 1996. letter from Ford Doolittle to Lap- Chee Tsui. Dalhousie University.

TPD-40 Hoy, M. October 14, 1996 letter from Michael Hoy to CGAP list serv. University of Guelph.

TPD-41 Shindler, D. October 22, 1996. email from David Shindler to Lap Chee. University of British Columbia.

TPD-42 Tsui, L.C. August 9, 1991. email from Lap-Chee Tsui to Ann Rose. Hospital for Sick Children.

TPD-43 Hodgetts, R. October 2, 1996. letter from Ross Hodgetts to CGAT list serv. University of Alberta.

TPD-44 Lang, B. F., Cedergren, R. May 26, 1989. Proposal for Megasequencing Facility. University of Montreal.

TPD-45 Wolfe, D., Salter, A. October 1, 1997. The Socio-Economic Importance of Scientific Research to Canada - Discussion Paper prepared for The Partnership

274

Group for Science and Engineering. Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.

TPD-76 Anonymous. August 10, 1991. Canadian Genome Network proposal.

275

Appendix C – Exploring Data Visualization

Temporal Patterns of the Expectations of Genomics Story-lines

Health Policy Social Status Cultural Science Training Economic Environment Organization Technological Axis Title

MRC GFT July 1997 - July 1998 MC 1 August 1998 - Feb 1999 MC 2 Feb 1999 - March 2000

Figure C-1. Exploring data visualization in the early stages of data analysis.