Science must become a pillar of Canadian foreign policy

In Davos, Prime Minister Mark Carney underlined that “Canada has what the world wants.” He mentioned several assets that Canada can mobilize in shaping a new international order: energy, capital and critical minerals. Canada’s science and technology prowess should be added to the list.

Canada consistently ranks among the countries with the largest volume of top-cited publications, and its research institutions attract the brightest minds. Some may argue that these are first and foremost soft power assets, meaning ways to “get others to want what you want through attraction,” that have limited impact in times of great power politics. However, such a characterization is increasingly outdated.

In today’s world, economic sovereignty, industrial capacity and national security, the legs of the figurative table that Prime Minister Carney invoked in Davos, are increasingly dependent on the ability to mobilize research and innovation ecosystems. Scientific capability is thus not only about knowledge production, but also about a country’s capacity to maintain technological sovereignty and contribute to global governance. Science, technology, and innovation should therefore be recognized as essential foundations of Canada’s foreign policy.

Science and diplomacy in Quebec

Quebec has recognized the strategic importance of science and technology earlier than other jurisdictions. It has developed key initiatives that leverage its research ecosystem as an international asset. These science diplomacy initiatives nurture relationships between Quebec and global scientific and technological leaders. For example, Quebec has established a network of science and innovation attachés across the world as well as a network of science diplomacy research chairs via the Fonds de recherche du Québec.

Despite these important achievements, further efforts are needed to consolidate, sustain and expand science diplomacy in Quebec. In fact, Quebec’s science diplomacy portfolio is spread across different ministries and agencies. In several cases, it has been driven by the leadership of individual actors like Quebec’s outgoing chief scientist, and may hence lack long-term support. Moreover, only a few research actors have so far been mobilized to contribute to Quebec’s science diplomacy vision and agenda. At a time of intensifying scientific and technological competition, this represents a missed opportunity that should be seized immediately. 

Navigating a fragmented world

Recent years have demonstrated that science and technology are an instrument and a focal point of geopolitical competition. Export controls on AI chips (hardware that frontier AI developments depend on) and the growing emphasis on research security illustrate how scientific activity is increasingly entangled with geopolitics.

This evolving landscape does not imply that international scientific collaboration should be abandoned. On the contrary, cooperation remains essential for addressing global challenges like climate change and AI safety. However, it does mean that science diplomacy must operate within a reality where collaboration and competition coexist.

In this context, policy makers in Quebec and across Canada must carefully consider how their scientific and technological strengths can contribute to a foreign policy strategy capable of navigating an increasingly fragmented world. The objective should not be to instrumentalize science for narrow geopolitical advantages. Rather, science and technology should become part of a foreign policy approach that is both value-driven and strategically aware. 

This would not only benefit federal and provincial governments. A stronger relationship between science, technology, innovation and foreign policy would also allow research actors to shape global governance, identify emerging vulnerabilities in scientific supply chains, and gain further access to international funding. Some may argue that such policy engagement taints science’s apolitical nature. But at a time when technological developments are reshaping global governance, science cannot remain isolated from the broader political and societal context in which it operates.

Science and strategic influence 

Scientific capability increasingly generates three forms of strategic influence: knowledge power (producing frontier research), technology power (translating discoveries into technological and industrial capabilities), and network power (shaping international research collaborations and standards). For science and technology to become pillars of Canadian foreign policy, Canada must therefore move beyond viewing science as a source of soft power only. Canada’s achievements in AI demonstrate what is possible in this regard: the creation of three national AI research institutes (Amii, Mila, and Vector) and the Canadian AI Safety Institute, which includes a research program at CIFAR, have greatly amplified the impact of Canadian AI research. 

Canada already has strong research capacity and global networks. The key challenge is turning these assets into strategic influence by better aligning research, innovation, and foreign policy. This will require striking a delicate balance between advancing science and technology for the global public good and leveraging its strategic importance in a competitive geopolitical environment. There are three ways to facilitate this balancing act:

1. Following the example of strategic partners like France, federal and provincial governments should develop formal science diplomacy strategies. These strategies would articulate how science, technology and innovation can contribute to a foreign policy agenda rooted in principles and pragmatism. Moreover, they would clearly point out areas of high diplomatic value, such as emerging technologies and climate science. They should also codify roles and mandates of relevant actors and operationalize strategic objectives. This will help to overcome fragmentation.  

2. The strategies must be developed through broad consultation with political and research communities across Canada. Otherwise, they will lack legitimacy and support. To mobilize provincial and national research communities, federal and provincial governments should initiate a call for evidence which allows research actors to express their interest in and possible contributions to a strategy. Similar approaches have proven effective in other jurisdictions, including the European Union, where the recently published proposal for a Council recommendation on a European Union framework for science diplomacy is explicitly informed by feedback from the research community. 

3. In turbulent geopolitical times, the strategies will need regular updating. The federal and provincial governments should therefore create a dedicated working group on science diplomacy that brings key research actors and foreign policy experts together on an annual basis to discuss the role of science, technology and innovation in foreign policy making.