Canadians debate science policy Last week in Ottawa, the Private Plan­ning Association of Canada (PPAC) held a conference on what has evolved into one of the most crucial issues facing Canada today—that country's future industrial policy. And emerging as one of the key factors in its overall indus­trial policy is Canada's future science policy.

In a pamphlet prepared for PPAC, Dr. Philippe Garigue, professor of political science at the University of Montreal, says that only recently have Canadians realized that the question of science policy impinges upon the key issues of national unity and survival. But, now that they have, "The public debate has become uncommonly heated for Can­ada."

Despite its many scientific and tech­nological activities, Canada's present situation is far from satisfactory. Sever­al government studies, as well as a re­port published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop­ment (OECD) have been critical. Re­cently, Dr. Alexander King, OECD's Director General for Scientific Affairs, criticized Canada for its lack of col­laboration on scientific questions be­tween universities and industry.

Dr. Garigue believes, however, that there is evidence that all is not lost. Two reports recently have been issued on Canadian science policy, one by the Senate Committee on Science Policy and the other by the Science Council. Although the recommendations of the two reports differ, they at least have generated agreement that "It is high time to make a fundamental change in the present system," Dr. Garigue says.

In his commentary, Dr. Garigue ex­amines both reports, points out their weaknesses, and makes suggestions of his own that involve "rethinking the roles of government, universities, and industry." According to Dr. Garigue, the Senate committee's report suggests a virtual mobilization of all resources behind industrial research and develop­ment. But he believes that the Senate committee's proposals offer only a par­tial solution. By allotting only a very secondary role to basic research, he says, the committee neglects three vital questions—the education and training of scientific personnel, coordination of scientific training in Canada, and the existence of regional disparities in scien­tific activities.

The Science Council has suggested that a number of major projects be ini­tiated in Canada. Dr. Garigue interprets this to mean that several major scien­tific projects would be channeled into existing government research agencies, but that industrial and university re­search would be bypassed. This solu­tion, he says, does not satisfy the need for long-term orientation of basic re­search across the nation.

The debate over Canada's science policy is still at the level of fragmented solutions, Dr. Garigue says. "What we are looking for is a way of bringing edu­cation, industry, and government to­gether in an institutional structure ca­pable of responding to two major prob­lems—regional disparity and the pres­ent low level of industrial R&D," he says.

The first step, Dr. Garigue suggests, is to establish definite national develop­ment goals because, as he points out, science policy is nothing more than a clear description of how science and technology can contribute to achieving these goals.

Education has been a strictly ob­served prerogative of the provinces in Canada. Dr. Garigue believes that the present network of provincial universi­ties will remain important in attracting and keeping scientists and engineers, as well as in developing the socio-economic growth of their areas. However, he pro­poses that a federal-provincial commit­tee, operating under the joint authority of the federal and provincial govern-

GOVERNMENT

Software patent issue Congress will likely jump quickly into the multibillion-dollar controversy over patentability of computer programs now that the Supreme Court has, in effect, recommended that it do so. But rapid resolution of this issue appears quite remote.

Heading the Capitol Hill agenda in the patent area is a major legislative reform of the patent laws which itself faces some significant roadblocks. How­ever, any provision either permitting or barring patentability of computer programs or "software" or perhaps pro­viding some other form of legal protec­tion for software will "probably be kept separate from the patent revision bill," Thomas C. Brennan, chief counsel to the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, tells C&EN. "This is almost essential be­cause I cannot conceive of any con­sensus [on software protection] devel­oping swiftly," he adds.

So for now software will not be pat­entable as a result of the landmark, 6-0 decision (three justices abstained) against patentability handed down by the Supreme Court late last month. The case, which involved a Bell Telephone Laboratories patent application, had dragged on through the Patent Office and courts since October 1963. The Patent Office's position has been that computer programs are unpatentable. Among contested patent applications for computer programs, the Bell claims were unique in that they were not tied to any specific computer hardware nor to any specific end use.

The Bell claims acquired the status of a test case of the Patent Office posi-

ments, be formed to coordinate their activities.

In addition, a coordinated plan for higher education in Canada must be de­veloped. Dr. Garigue says that the Na­tional Research Council should be di­vested of its grant-giving function and should be transformed into a national, postgraduate institution for basic re­search.

The R&D system "that was deliber­ately built" by the Canadians has penal­ized the R&D efforts of private com­panies, Dr. Garigue says, and Canadians should not blame the multinational companies for their (the Canadians') lack of technological growth. He believes that Canadian economic growth can be stimulated by an increase in the propor­tion of gross national product invested in industrial R&D. This, however, will require changes in the government-industry relationship, as well as within industry itself. But, Dr. Garigue says, "The real answer to the question, how much industrial research, really de­pends on the kind of industrial policy Canada is willing to adopt."

moves to Congress tion when a federal appeals court over­ruled the Patent Office in May 1971. Appealed to the Supreme Court, the case drew 16 "friend-of-the-court" briefs, an unusually high number, from the computer hardware and software industries, from computer users, and from the patent bar.

Considering the economic stakes at issue, however, the high number of out­side parties to the case is not surpris­ing. The total value of computer sys­tems in use in the U.S. in 1971 is put at about $27 billion and is expected to reach $44 billion in 1975. Meanwhile, software purchases in the U.S. amounted to about $5 billion in 1970 and are likely to rise to $10 billion a year by 1975 and $15 billion by 1980.

The Patent Office puts the annual cost of programing computers at 30% of the purchase value of the machines, or about $15 billion by 1975. What's more, computer users are already spend­ing as much on software as they are on hardware, according to the Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (BEMA), which includes the giants of the computer hardware industry.

Computer hardware makers, who are against software patents, contend that rapid growth and innovation in software have resulted from free and open ex­change of programing ideas. BEMA, in its court brief, argued that software patents might well impede development of computer time-sharing; others on the hardware side of the controversy ap­parently fear other crimps in computer sales. BEMA also raises the threat of a "flood of complex patent infringement suits" against software users. Detecting

10 C&EN Dec. 4, 1972