The whole sobbing at work thing is tiring plus I think my officemate, who doesn't really speak English, must think I'm insane. Not the most poetic thing to say but - death sucks.
So as a distraction, I've decided to blog about a couple of recent emails I've received from friends that show that the scientific community in Canada is frustrated and fearful at the conservative government's treatment of fundamental scientific research.
But really is this surprising?
S
tephen Harper (the Prime Minister of Canada) is, as far as I'm concerned, has an underlying ideology that he weasels into every policy. While I may be a granola eating birkie-wearing tree hugger, Harper is a neo-con who lives and dies by the market. He won't listen to hard-done-by stories of the 'little people' and his natural inclination is toward rigid conservative policies. Stephen Harper's closest advisor (Tom Flanagan) believes in the teachings of Leo Strauss, a man who taught that people "are too stupid to make informed decisions about their political affairs. Elite philosophers must decide on affairs of state for us." Strauss also believed that the ruling elite should hide the truth from the public -- Strauss's "noble lie" -- in order to protect the citizens from themselves.The comparison between Harper and Bush is stark and explains why Canadian scientists are fearful about the future of science. For more details on the Harper-Bush comparison see this article.
It is only because Bush had his head up his axis of evil for 8 years that the US is ready for whatever change comes their way. It means that Obama is given quite a bit of leeway. It's why he can return science to its rightful place and increase the presence of science in policy-making. In his 2009 Budget Obama stated, "investments in science and technology foster economic growth, create millions of high-tech, high-wage jobs that allow American workers to lead the global economy.” Thus, Obama has committed $7 billion to NSF and $10 billion to NIH.
Furthermore, Obama believes in higher education. He has proposed to increase the maximum Pell Grant for low-income college students to $5,550, making it part of the federal government's mandatory annual budget. This is quite an unusual move because it will protect the funding from political and budgetary pressures and link grant increases for students to inflation. Today Pell Grants cover only 35% of the cost of attending college, 30 years ago it covered 77%.
Lastly Obama has selected a science and technology administration consisting of Nobel prize winning Steven Chu, a marine biologist, Jane Lubchenco, and a Harvard physicist John P. Holdren.
Let's look at the Canadian plan.
Stephen Harper has cut the base budgets of three science councils: CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC by $87.2 million over three years. In his budget, Harper suggests that this reduction in research support will be shifted to fund graduate scholarships (500 doctoral fellowships at $35000 each and 1000 one-time Master's level grants valued at $17, 100 each). This increase in scholarships is temporary and will revert back to previous levels after 2 years but the reduction in funding to the tri-councils is permanent. While I think it is important to have strong funding for graduate students, it seems that the reason most of us choose a particular school is because of the research program. To maintain solid research programs funding needs to be stable. It is also perfectly clear to anyone with half a mind that some of the biggest labs employ up to 50 people if not more.
The second problem with this type of funding is it accents an already present hierarchy among graduate students. Those with strong funding sources don't have to TA or find other means of support and hence can focus on the research and finish their degree in a timely manner. This advantage is cumulative. Good funding at the Phd level translates to funding at the post-doc level and so on. I realize life isn't fair. But must we foster inequality?
Finally, restricting funding for Master's students to a single year de-values and marginalizes the degree. A MSc. is an important stepping stone for those students who aren't sure that they want to pursue a scientific career. Click here to find out why 1-year of funding is simply not enough for a Masters.
As if it wasn't enough to have muzzled Environment Canada's scientists and removed the independent science advisor, the Harper government continues to show its disregard for science.
In a 2003 speech that Harper gave to Civitas (a network of Canadian neoconservative and libertarian academics, politicians, journalists), he said that the state should take a more activist role in policing social norms and values. Now in the Budget 2009, the Government of Canada wants to allocate $17.5 million over three years to Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to fund an additional graduate work “focused on business-related degrees.”
Then at a meeting between David Robinson, associate executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers and Gary Goodyear, Minister of Science things erupted. From a Globe and Mail article,
"The minister was very angry," said David Robinson, associate executive director of CAUT. "He was raising his voice and pointing his finger ... He said everyone loves their [federal budget] and we said, 'A lot of our members don't love it'... and he said, 'That's because you're lying to them, misleading them.' "(Misleading the public is a Harper speciality and harkens back to his Straussian belief in the "noble lie." )
The most obvious way Harper has shown his disregard for science is to hire a chiropractor as the Minister of Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear. My mom always said chiropractor's were quacks. And she was always right.
It's no coincidence that there is a resemblance between the new Canadian emperor, Stephen Harper and Homer.
16 comments:
great post!
As a student currently on the second year of the (now former) 2 year MSc NSERC funding, I couldn't agree more.
An excellent post.
Now aren't you glad you are working the great US of A right NOW (as opposed to a few years ago), and not Canada?
And perhaps in a few years, when (if?) you return, Canada will have followed in our footsteps and elected someone who actually cares about science and makes it a priority
It's sad to see Canada throwing away its scientists. I guess there is no need for basic research, expanding labs and such. I was very shocked by Mr. Goodyears "screaming" when i heard it in the news. It's just sad that a person like him (chiropractor) does not understand the need of research. Similar thing happened to CISTI (Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information). Apparently the Government doesn't think that one of the premier scientific libraries in the world is such a good thing to have because, I guess, everything is on Google for free. I hope science won't die in Canada.
Take care, Julie
Yes I am truly glad that I'm in USA. But the situation here is quite dire. I guess we'll see how things pan out in the next little while. I am quite concerned about the job prospects. At least I'm lucky enough to have a job.
re: revisions back from GSG - the nicest thing she ever said about a first draft of mine was "this is a good start". That was like getting an A on a test. That was definitely better than the time she corrected a draft and then told me the best thing to do was probably just to start again.
You're allowed to be unproductive and unfocused for awhile. Good luck D.
Harper appears to be like Thatcher was in the UK - anti-intellectual. It is very sad as he is squandering Canada's hard won research reputation and potential for future development. Politician's like that are pathetic, one can only hope we are rid of him and his government asap. One thing I would say is that as scientists we expose ourselves much more to this sort of behaviour by not getting involved in politics. There needs to be more scientists in politics in Canada.
Canada let me down by not funding my graduate studies here in the US, but my province let me down even more by not even having any graduate loan situation set up for anyone interested in pursuing graduate studies in other provinces and of course country.
ACG
Thanks, I'm trying to remind myself of this.
Dr.J
I wonder if there are some inherent dangers in having scientists as politicians. Perhaps what you mean is having scientists play a more active role in policy making or scientific advising. Unfortunately, that would require a government that values what we have to say.
Shell
You make an interesting point. I never thought about setting up graduate loan programs for people who want to study out of country. I'm not sure how that works with the 'attempt at keeping the brightest and the best' in Canada. Though it looks like these policies may be self-defeating.
Hang in there for a few more years. There will be jobs in Canada, especially for bloggers. :-)
But first we have to get rid of Harper and his lackeys.
Oh no, I very definitely mean there should be some scientists that go into to politics. This has happened in the UK and it is for the better of politics that there are scientifically literate and competent people in parliament. Unlike the usual mix of lawyers and business people. This is not to say all politics should be run by scientists, quite to the contrary, I'm not aware of any evidence that would improve things generally. But nonetheless it would be better for holding government to account and for having strong advocates and not least to take some of the fear of the complexity out of science for other politicians.
Hmm..it would be interesting to look at some specific examples of how this helped in the British Parliament.
What you are suggesting would require scientists to be good communicators. By that I mean capable of making science accessible to the average person and not just to their colleagues. Other than David Suzuki and Bob MacDonald, do we have enough of those?
I'm slightly confused. You seem to be saying no scientists should become politicians and presumably politics wouldn't benefit from having some scientifically literate politicians.
Here is one example from the UK. Dr Ian Gibson, former head of department because an MP in 1997. He then headed up the influential Science and Technology select committee, with other scientifically literate MPs and non scientist MPs. This kept the government and the research councils on their toes. They issue independent reports that the government is forced to publish and answer and consider and act on. As I understand it such a function is missing in Canada and indeed Harper sidelines his science advisor and is the one who asks for reports. I can't see this ever happening in the UK.
No, no. I absolutely agree with you on the issue. I just don't think we are training scientists to pursue other types of jobs like the one you've mentioned. Nor does the public appreciate what we have to offer. I'm suggesting that the breakdown comes in because of a lack of communication.
BTW that's a great example. Thanks!
It's not just the hard sciences that are effected: SSHRC funding is now to be directed to 'Business Degrees' AKA MBA's.
So PhDs in the Humanities and Social Sciences are getting screwed over too.
Not sure if this is due to scientists infiltrating the British government, but I did find this interesting: http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/what-science-issue-shall-we-ask-parliament-to-talk-about/
As a student who received only 1 year of NSERC funding I couldn't disagree more.
Firstly, most M.Sc students only receive one year of funding unless their graduation occurs much later than expected. So of the thousands of graduate students only a small fraction will be affected. Hardly the marginalization you claim. Moreover such a system fosters inequality between students who have funding for two years and those who only have it for their second year.
As you state, life isn't fair but must we foster such an inequality?
Secondly, as you stated students who don't have both years of their M.Sc covered by NSERC don't have to TA. Since most students don't have both years covered, most students TA and a small fraction don't. But the process of TAing is important and invaluable. Being a graduate student is more than just spending time in a lab tinkering with an experiment or fiddling with a simulation, rather being able to explain science topics to non-scientists is a skill that needs development and helps build teaching skills that are absolutely necessary for anyone considering a career as a professor. (plus where else would we get hilarious stories about undergrads?)
Remember that this change was suggested by NSERC as part of their review and was not foisted on them by the government. It is a decision made by scientists in response to a request by the federal government to examine ways to cut costs. Disagreeing with the cuts is one thing you can attack Harper on, but on specific things like this you're attacking the scientists who made these decisions themselves.
Also, you totally ignore the billions of $$$ being spent on science infrastructure which has been largely neglected in Canada. This helps students in two ways, firstly you have brand new or renovated buildings which can house more graduate students and more labs (a universal complaint no matter where you go is that there is not enough lab space). In both universities that I have been to the most common complaint was the lack of lab space or the poor quality of buildings. The second way it helps is that it reduces the burden that is placed on students themselves through tuition increases. Ironically at some universities it will also help preserve the environment since some, such as UBC in Vancouver, sell old-growth forest land to be torn down and developed into subdivisions and communities in order to fund construction projects.
Post a Comment