This is not supposed to be a political blog, but the current economy is hurting scientific funding and so I feel justified in posting links to Jon Stewart’s absolute thrashing of the sort of people who contributed to the current economic mess by giving nonsensical financial advice.

(If it won’t play, go here).

To watch this in Canada, go here.

By the way, if you think Stewart only came off so well because he was on his own turf, see him on Crossfire:

Here is an excerpt from an editorial in the Toronto Star today:

There is a fundamental disconnection between the nation’s scientists and political leaders over what Ottawa is doing for research.

The scientists complain that the federal government has slashed funding for research and, as a result, Canada runs the risk of a “brain drain” to the United States, where the new Obama administration is pouring money into the field. The government, on the other hand, says it has increased research funding by billions of dollars and the complaining scientists are cry babies. They are both right.

So, even though the editorial then goes on to (correctly) explain the scientists’ position that injecting money for infrastructure (mostly at the request of universities, which is not the same as what scientists may have asked for) while simultaneously cutting basic grants, providing no new support for major agencies such as Genome Canada, and directing money increasingly toward government-preferred applied projects will likely harm Canada’s research abilities, the editor thinks we’re cry babies.

This must be just a poor choice of wording, given the actual conclusion:

There are reports that Goodyear is quietly assuring people in the field that this cut will be restored in future budgets. If so, there seems no reason why that couldn’t be done now. The amount in question is minuscule when compared to the $76.5 billion cumulative deficit projected over next three fiscal years (less than two-tenths of 1 per cent). And the danger of losing scientists and projects to the U.S. is real if the government waits until later.

Finally.

“Today, with the executive order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers, doctors, and innovators, patients and loved ones have hoped for, fought for these past eight years.”

“We will lift the ban on federal funding for … embryonic stem cell research.”

On the McLean’s blog, Paul Wells asks whether the anecdotes of hard times for Canadian scientists reported in the Globe and Mail are indicative of broader problems. Specifically, he writes,

So here’s my problem: why has nobody in the research community been able to demonstrate that this is the case? With something more persuasive than anecdotes, I mean. The only problem with the Globe story is that it uses “researchers,” plural, in the headline, when in fact it’s just another anecdote about some guy who had a sweeter offer in Singapore than he did at home. Maybe the guy in the next lab is here in Canada because Singapore was chintzing him out and it all balances out in the end.

What I’m wondering is when Canada’s researchers, who depend in many cases on tax dollars for their work, are going to do some research about the distribution of those tax dollars. I asked a director of research at one of Canada’s most prominent institutions whether there’s any objective measure of research capacity vs. granting flow that would demonstrate the kind of mismatch today’s article hints at. He said he’s not aware of any. Well, that’s a problem, isn’t it? If our national science apparatus is overbuilt and underfuelled, rebalancing becomes crucial. But if the only people who think it is are researchers, and they can’t get their act together to prove their point, nobody will listen.

These are good questions. I tend to agree that we (Canadian scientists) need to be much more vocal in communicating our successes and our challenges to taxpayers.

For a start, I can point out the following items:

1) An analysis of the relative support for and productivity of Canadian researchers has been discussed in scientific publications, such as this Nature article.

2) The problem of a “brain drain” was one of the reasons the Canada Research Chair program, the CFI, and Genome Canada were developed. Despite some problems, this seems to have worked — quite a number of top rank researchers have relocated to Canada and many more have stayed. It follows that cutting support for some of these programs may have the reverse effect. In fact, just the perception of uncertaintly in terms of funding can make it unappealing for someone to move here and start a program. The journal Nature discussed the state of Canadian science here and here.

3) It is well recognized that Canadian scientists are not as well funded as American colleagues. Individual grants tend to be much smaller and there are fewer options for support. The big problem, which will affect everyone, is that the recent budget includes cuts to NSERC and CIHR. With this, it will be very difficult to pay for students and operating expenses. One can invest in infrastructure (e.g., with CFI), but that doesn’t pay for people to do actual studies.

4) The government is increasingly exerting an influence on what kinds of research are funded, with a specific focus on applied areas such as energy, fisheries, aquaculture, etc. This is at the expense of basic research.

5) There has been a shift to funding very large student scholarships ($50K/yr, which is twice the average starting grant for some panels in NSERC). Most of us find this completely inexplicable.

Just want to thank you again, my American neighbours, for (ahem, finally) electing an intellectual leader — this hardly makes up for the past 8 years, but it is a fantastic start.

Are you listening, Mr. Harper?

Of the many things cut from the revised American stimulus package…

• $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)

• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)

• $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)

• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation

• $50 million for aquaculture

• $2 billion for broadband

• $50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

• $25 million for Fish and Wildlife

• $3.5 billion for higher education construction

Well, it was a nice dream while it lasted.

Fellow Canadians,

If you’re wondering about the broader impression of the challenges facing Canadian science, you can see these stories from the prestigious UK journal Nature over the past year or so.

By the way, I haven’t found a colleague yet who isn’t a) glad about infrastructure funding, b) puzzled and concerned by a lack of support for people and supplies, and c) totally perplexed by the establishment of huge graduate scholarships for a small collection of individuals.

Cash concerns for Canadian scientists
Could programme cuts prompt a brain drain?

Canada’s scientists face an uncertain future
Political turmoil leaves key positions in doubt

Canada abolishes its national science adviser
After just four years, government axes post

Science in retreat
Canada has been scientifically healthy. Not so its government.

Thanks are due to the Globe and Mail (one of Canada’s national newspapers) for continuing to report on the lack of new support for Canadian science in the new budget by the Conservative government. In a time when the US is injecting major new funds into science and technology, when Canada is now in a leadership position in many major initiatives following a reversal of the “brain drain”, and when the future of the economy after the current challenges will clearly be based in large part on biotechnology, the Conservatives have decided to cut off the development of new research and to exert increased control on the science that does receive funding. This administration is a disaster for Canadian science, and for all elements of society affected by science, from the economy to citizens’ health.

• Budget erases funding for key science agency
• Nation’s credibility on the line, scientists warn
• Nobel scientist criticizes Tories over funding
• As U.S. emerges from dark age, Canada’s scientific edge fades
• Medical journal blasts budget’s vision for science

Here is what’s going on, folks. The Conservative government is investing in infrastructure but is cutting off support for new initiatives by not supporting the equally important investment in people and operating costs. They are requiring the three federal granting councils to cut $87 million from their already disproportionately small budgets (hint: I received considerably more from NSERC as a postdoc than as a primary investigator). They are focusing support for students into a smaller number of insanely large scholarships ($50K/year, twice the average starting grant!). They are imposing their own priority areas on funding programs, including mostly applied issues (e.g., forestry, automotive, fisheries) and destroying support for basic research. And they have dissolved the national science advisor’s office.

If you’re not upset about this, fellow Canadians, you will be when we lose our best and brightest and rapidly fall behind other countries in the new biotech economy.

Here is the official word from Genome Canada:

Federal Budget 2009

Key Messages from the Board of Directors of Genome Canada

• Genome Canada is pleased with the federal government’s 2009 budget in which millions will be invested in research infrastructure over the next two years. This is good news for the scientific community across the country that needs to be at the cutting-edge of research infrastructure and new technologies in order to maintain Canada’s competitiveness at the national and international level.
• Although Genome Canada did not receive funding in the 2009 federal budget to fund new genomics research projects, this will not impact Genome Canada’s current projects that received a full commitment of funding from previous federal government investments in 2007 and 2008.
  
• Genome Canada has in place two five-year funding agreements with the Government of Canada for a total of $240M:
  $100 M (2008-2012)
  $140 M (2009- 2013)
• These investments flow to Genome Canada on a cash requirement basis. Thus, a total of $107M has been invested in 2008-09; and a total of $106.5M will be invested in 2009-10, creating and maintaining over 2,350 HQP positions per year.
• Over the same period of time, Genome Canada has raised over $225M from other strategic partners in the private, public and philanthropic sectors to support genomics research in Canada.
• Since its inception in 2000, Genome Canada has provided operating funds to Canadian genomics researchers, while complementing other sources of funds for infrastructure coming from such agencies as Canada Foundation for Innovation, to allow them to be among world leaders in their respective fields such as human health, agriculture, environment, forestry, fisheries, new technology, and GE³LS (ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues).
• Genome Canada is confident that the Government of Canada and its other financial strategic partners will do everything possible over the coming years to secure additional funding to support new initiatives in genomics research in Canada while increasing Canada’s productivity, wealth and well-being of all Canadians.

In a recent story in GenomeWeb Daily News, President of Genome Canada Martin Godbout said,

“Genome Canada is not in the federal budget this year, and there’s good reason for it,” Godbout explained.

“Genome Canada is not founding any infrastructure or equipment,” explained Godbout, who described this year’s federal budget as one focused on projects that will feed those objectives. “It is a decision that I respect,” he told GWDN. “It’s hard everywhere.”

This conflicts with his earlier reaction (here and here), but it does bear noting that no current projects will be cut and that there is significant funding for infrastructure through other agencies.

The problem is that this does not allow new initiatives to be developed or productive ones to be expanded. It’s still very bad news in that regard. More importantly, it is essential that the ministry realize that infrastructure alone can’t do anything. You also have to support people and research expenses if you desire results.