As indicated by the popular vote totals, there is little support for the claim that a coalition government between the Liberal and NDP parties in Canada would be undemocratic. However, this represents a very rough analysis because the Canadian system, like many others, is a first-past-the-post process in which the candidate with the most votes is elected regardless of the margin.

In order to reveal the desire of the electorate more realistically, it is necessary to consider the total votes in each riding rather than at the national scale. I decided to see what would have happened in the latest election had the Liberal and NDP candidates run jointly in each riding from the outset by summing their respective votes on a riding by riding level. I compared only the major parties, meaning that I did not include any votes from the Green Party, independents, or fringe parties in the new totals. Data were acquired from Elections Canada and only verified final results were analyzed.

The actual election results were (number of seats):

• Conservative: 143
• Liberal: 77
• Bloc Qubecois: 49
• NDP: 37
• Independent: 2

Now, taking each riding individually and adding the Liberal and NDP votes received, we note the following changes:

• Conservatives would have lost 30 ridings to Liberal+NDP and retained 113.
• Bloc Quebecois would have lost 9 ridings to Liberal+NDP and retained 40.

The new election results, if we count each riding by itself but combine the voters who chose either Liberal or NDP, are then:

• Liberal+NDP: 153
• Conservative: 113
• Bloc Quebecois: 40
• Independent: 2

We can’t assume that the election would have turned out exactly like this with combined parties (it would depend on the candidate, party leader, etc.). Nevertheless, this gives a reasonable estimate of what voters wanted in terms of representation. In other words, the election results, whether analyzed by popular vote nationally or riding by riding, clearly refute the claim that a coalition of the Liberal and NDP would contradict the expressed will of voters.

Ok, so Canada elected a conservative government again, meaning that the Conservative Party of Canada (a merger of the former right-centre Progressive Conservative Party and far-right Canadian Alliance) won more seats than the other parties. However, they did not win more than all other parties combined, which means that they have a minority government. In such a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party who won the most seats, although his party may still be a minority in parliament.

There is now talk of a coalition government between the left-centre Liberal Party and the left New Democratic Party. Together, these two parties still would not have more seats than the Conservative Party, but with the support of the Quebec-only Bloc Québécois, they could be given the chance to govern.

There is some talk on the news and on forums that such a move would be undemocratic since the Conservative Party was elected and has a clear mandate from the people. What do Canadians want? Here are the data from the recent election (via Wikipedia).

I have complained recently about the state of basic research support in Canada, as the current government is pushing for more short-sighted, applied, industry-oriented work. This is as nothing compared to the attitude of some politicians south of the 49th.

Here is how a recent paper of mine began*:

Through all the major transitions in genetics over the past 100 years – from early mutation and mapping studies involving countless crosses and phenotypic analyses, to karyotyping and polytene chromosome banding, to the application of allozymes in population-level surveys, to the advent of complete genome sequencing and the rise of “evo-devo” – the fly Drosophila melanogaster has maintained its uncontested status as a preeminent model organism (Brookes, 2001; Beller & Oliver, 2006). Several entire volumes have been devoted to its use in experimental genetics (e.g., Demerec & Kaufmann, 1996; Powell, 1997; Sulivan et al.,2000; Henderson 2003; Ashburner et al., 2005), and it is estimated that there are well over 1,000 research groups worldwide who use Drosophila as a key model (Clark et al., 2003). As Demerec & Kaufmann (1996, p.1) put it, “it would not be an exaggeration to say that we have learned more about the basic laws of heredity from the study of this fly than from work on all other organisms combined.”

Here is what Palin has to say about wasting money on fruit fly work. I kid you not.

________

* Yes, I know Drosophila technically is not a fruit fly, but it is often referred to this way.

Update:

It is even worse… apparently this actually referred to applied studies on the olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae) which is a major agricultural pest (one can only imagine what she says about basic research).

Here is what the Congressman who earmarked it stated:

“The Olive Fruit Fly has infested thousands of California olive groves and is the single largest threat to the U.S. olive and olive oil industries,” he said. “I secured $748,000 for olive fruit fly research and irradiation in the (fiscal year 2008) appropriations bill for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA will use some of that funding for their research facility in France. This USDA research facility is located in France because Mediterranean countries like France have dealt with the Olive Fruit Fly for decades, while California has only been exposed since the late 1990s. This is not uncommon; the USDA has several international research facilities throughout the world, including Australia, China and Argentina.”

Hat tips: Pharyngula, Chance and Necessity, Mike the Mad Biologist

Unfortunate though it is, we in the scientific community seem to have to justify regularly the “relevance” of basic, or curiosity-driven, research. Case in point, the February 2008 issue of the CAUT Bulletin has a commentary by Vern Paetkau who makes the point once again that basic research underpins most future advances in applied science. I will let Dr. Paetkau speak for himself by simply referring you to his piece, which can be found here. I will, however, re-quote what I think is a superb point by Nobel laureate Arthur Kornberg:

“No matter how counter-intuitive it may seem, basic research is the lifeline of practical advances in medicine and pioneering inventions are the source of industrial strength.”

Scientists know this, but those with control of the funds often do not see it this way — and that’s a big problem for everyone, not just researchers.

I love Canada. Yes, I know, we’re all human beings and national boundaries are mostly arbitrary, but I am proud of my country and its approach to its citizens and the world. I have lived in the United States and I have lived in England and I appreciated many things about both, but I am glad to be home again. I can think of no other place I would rather live.

I also love science. There are easier jobs, and higher paying ones, but there is nothing better in my mind than spending time pursuing whatever interests me, learning about how the world is and why it is that way, and sharing that knowledge — some age-old, some brand new, and some otherwise known only by me as its discoverer — with others.

The Canadian research system differs from those of some other nations in that it has always aimed to support as broad a range of scientists as possible. We traditionally did not have multi-million-dollar grants given to a select few, but rather much smaller grants distributed to a large percentage of researchers. It used to be that a good researcher — rather than a particular study — would be funded and could more or less pursue his or her interests, or could switch focus if some new and exciting topic emerged. Dollar for dollar, Canadian researchers have been incredibly productive, generating a competitive amount of knowledge with what must seem to colleagues in some other countries as pocket change.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6997/full/430311a.html

Thus, you can imagine my dismay when I see what our current administration is doing to science in Canada. The conservative government, as noted in my previous post, have decided that we should have an elitist system in which they, rather than the scientific community, determine what a short list of priority subjects are. Not surprisingly, it’s all applied science focused in an Orwellian way on the environment and health. Only those who understand nothing about science could possibly think that the best way to find solutions to applied problems is to undermine basic research. Not to mention the reputation that this administration has when it comes to issues like environmental protection and socialized health care.

ScienceNow reported recently on some asinine new policies of the Conservatives toward research, but even before this latest development Nature pointed out the suffering of Canadian science under this government:

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

Comparisons of nations’ scientific outputs over the years have shown that Canada’s researchers have plenty to be proud of, consistently maintaining their country’s position among the world’s top ten. Alas, their government’s track record is dismal by comparison.

When the Canadian government announced earlier this year that it was closing the office of the national science adviser, few in the country’s science community were surprised. Science has long faced an uphill battle for recognition in Canada, but the slope became steeper when the Conservative government was elected in 2006.

…

Concerns can only be enhanced by the government’s manifest disregard for science. Since prime minister Stephen Harper came to power, his government has been sceptical of the science on climate change and has backed away from Canada’s Kyoto commitment. In January, it muzzled Environment Canada’s scientists, ordering them to route all media enquires through Ottawa to control the agency’s media message. Last week, the prime minister and members of the cabinet failed to attend a ceremony to honour the Canadian scientists who contributed to the international climate-change report that won a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

…

On the surface, funding for university-based research seems strong. The annual budgets for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council tripled and doubled, respectively, between 2000 and 2005. The government has also supported new science projects through government-created corporations such as Genome Canada and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and has recruited and retained promising young scientists through the Canada Research Chairs programme.

But Genome Canada funds only half of the cost of a research project — scientists must seek the remaining cash from elsewhere. Last year, the CIHR was able to fund only 16% of the applications it received, and cut the budgets of successful applicants by a quarter, on average. And earlier this month, the country’s top scientists and university officials warned that they were short of funds to operate multimillion-dollar big-science projects such as the Canadian Light Source synchrotron.

What’s to be done? Canada has made good investments in its science infrastructure and its future research leaders. The present government might be dissolved after a vote of confidence next month, which could in itself lead to a change for the better. But in any circumstances, Canada’s leading scientists can be public advocates, pointing to the examples of other countries in urging the government of the day to boost their country into a position of leadership rather than reluctant follower.

Let me say this. I admit that I have been a beneficiary of some of the elitist components of the system, including graduate scholarships, a postdoctoral fellowship, and individual awards. I also have co-authored successful Genome Canada and Canada Foundation for Innovation grants. But this new focus on supporting few to the detriment of many is as un-Canadian as it is scientifically disastrous. It is my sincere hope that Canada’s researchers will refuse to accept this assault on science in our country.

First they dismissed the National Science Advisor and closed the office. Now they announce increases in funding for science — to a small elite, and only for those working in areas the Conservative government thinks are important. It’s all applied topics — for the agency that presently funds most basic science, NSERC: automotive, manufacturing, forestry, and fishing industries. Instead of raising support for everyone, which is much needed, they will give it to a small few. This is so… un-Canadian. One of the craziest bits is offering $50,000 per year to a select group of doctoral students — they could provide scholarships for twice as many at half the price per, and they would still be doing well compared to most students.

I hate that I had to start a new label, “politics”, just for this post, but I can barely take it.

From ScienceNow‘s report:

• “Since assuming office in 2006, Canada’s minority Conservative government has argued that it’s more important to fund the best and the brightest in designated areas than to spread the wealth across the entire spectrum of scientific activity. Today, it reinforced that message in a new 2008-2009 budget that will shower 20 scientific superstars from within Canada and abroad with $10 million apiece over 7 years.”

• “It has yet to be determined whether the chairs will be selected through competitions administered by the country’s three research granting councils or whether a government department such as Industry Canada will oversee the program, including selection of the recipients.”

• “Finance officials stressed that the allocations must be directed at priority areas rather than simply pumped into core operating grant programs. ‘The government has made it clear that they want this money to support the kind of research that should be supported,” says one official. ‘And the councils will have to answer to the Treasury Board if they don’t.'”

• “Doctoral students will also be beneficiaries of the move toward more elitism. Scholarships named in honor of war hero and former Governor General Georges P. Vanier will be created to attract 500 of ‘the best doctoral students from here and around the world to study in Canada’ each year. Each student will be eligible for $50,000 per year for up to 3 years.”

Expect a significant discussion among Canadian researchers — perhaps not even totally polite — over this.