The unique Canada-U.S. science partnership as remembered through a special science adviser
For decades, Canada and the United States have cooperated across a range of scientific and policy priorities from technology to environment, from space exploration to genomics. Research, and the knowledge it generates, crosses a mostly frictionless border with the same ease as 18-wheelers crossing the Peace Bridge. On both sides of the 49th parallel, universities welcome faculty and students who bring knowledge and expertise that contribute to world-class research, the private sectors invest in technology and innovation, and governments, from municipal to federal, collaborate on policy development. The overall result is one of the world's most productive and successful scientific relationships.
However, the relationship has not been without stresses, as matters of state have influenced science policy on each side. Trade disputes, concerns about economic competitiveness, shifting geopolitical priorities, and debates over sovereignty have introduced new frictions. At the same time, scientific cooperation globally is becoming more complicated as countries seek to balance openness with security concerns and strategic competition. Science itself is increasingly entangled in politics, geopolitical rivalry, and public distrust.
Yet, this is precisely the moment when Canada and the U.S. should be looking for new opportunities to work together. Artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, biotechnology, critical minerals, the energy transition, and Arctic research all present challenges that neither country can fully address alone.
Recently, one of the authors of this piece (Eric M. Meslin) delivered the D. Allan Bromley Memorial Lecture at the University of Ottawa, which coincided with the 100th anniversary of Bromley’s birth in Westmeath, Ont. It was an instructive reminder of how science partnerships matter, and how science diplomacy can deliver in a turbulent environment. As both countries consider how to modernize their relationship, it is worth revisiting Bromley’s career which is a case study in science leadership, cooperation, and diplomacy.
Bromley (1926–2005) first rose to prominence as a physicist in Canada before taking up leadership roles in the U.S. including his most influential as science adviser to then-president George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1993. But he was not only a Canadian who found success in America: his career mixed academic research, policy development, executive leadership, mentorship, and political advice at a time when such non-linear career trajectories were unusual. As Bush’s science adviser, Bromley operated during a period of profound transition. The Cold War was ending, the rationale for large-scale federal science investment was shifting, and emerging fields such as genomics and advanced computing were beginning to reshape the research landscape.
What makes Bromley's career particularly relevant today is not only that he had an impact in both countries—which he did—but also that the philosophy of leadership and the engagement he modelled are especially applicable now.
Bromley’s instinct for cooperation, collaboration, and engagement extended beyond his work in the White House. As president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he reinforced the importance of scientific institutions as spaces for collaboration. Bromley pressed for stronger cross-border engagement, including efforts to bring major scientific gatherings to Canada as well as advising on U.S./Canada science policy initiatives—a recognition that North American science has always been, at its best, a shared enterprise.
As the formative leader of the global Carnegie Group, he developed an informal network of science ministers and science advisers from leading industrialized countries.
It was quiet work, largely invisible to the public, but essential to building trust and maintaining coherence in an increasingly complex global research system.
Importantly, Bromley viewed scientific cooperation not as a luxury, but as a strategic asset. These relationships created channels of communication and trust that benefited both countries.
Today, similar opportunities exist. Joint investments in AI and advanced manufacturing could strengthen North American competitiveness. Collaboration on critical minerals and energy technologies could improve economic resilience and energy security. Expanded cooperation in Arctic research and knowledge could help both countries better understand and respond to environmental and geopolitical changes affecting the globe. Research partnerships in health and biotechnology could accelerate innovation while improving preparedness for future public health and societal challenges.
At a time when public debate often rewards disruption and division, Bromley’s career reminds us of the value of another approach: the patient work of building trust, sustaining institutions, and finding common ground among people and countries with shared interests.
Often by referencing fundamental values that distinguish each from the other, we would be wise to recall Allan Bromley’s legacy of institutional cooperation and collaboration as equally worthy of celebration.
Eric M. Meslin is the former president and CEO of the Council of Canadian Academies; former executive director of the U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Commission under president Bill Clinton, and adjunct professor at Dalla Lana School of Public Health University of Toronto. Paul Dufour is a senior fellow at the Institute for Science, Society, and Policy at the University of Ottawa. Jeff Kinder is director of science, technology, and innovation at the Council of Canadian Academies and former executive director of science and innovation at the Institute on Governance.
The Hill Times