The Value of Science in Canada: Part Deux

I am not usually spurred on to write an entire post in response to a comment but this one posted on the blog, The Value of Science in Canada, made me angry because the graduate student made baseless and ignorant statements.

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.

There are two issues that this reader has brought up. He assumes that because there are thousands of graduate students and only a few that get grants, there are only a small fraction of students who will be affected. To determine if, in fact, he is correct and proportionately speaking that changes to the funding structure aren't such a big deal, we need estimates on how many graduates there are in Canada and how many graduate students are actually funded through grants from the tri-councils.

How many science graduate students (both doctoral and Masters) are there in Canada?

In the United States, in 2006 there were a total of 11,570 doctorate degrees awarded in the field of science and engineering (NSF Report). The US has a population of 306,041,094, so only 0.00378% of the population received a doctorate in 2006. If we assume that proportionately speaking the same number of people received doctorates in Canada and the most recent estimate of population size is 31,281,092 (July 2000), then that's about 1182 people in Canada.

Estimates of the number of applicants for doctoral awards at the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, NSERC, are about 1600. There were 883 doctoral applications to the Canadian Institute of Research Health (CIHR) for awards in 2006 (Research and Analyses Dec 2007). So all told there might be 2500 doctoral students in Canada in the sciences, clearly an underestimate. There are no doubt more PhDs that start than finish too.

ASIDE: Somewhere I know there are stats on this because when I finished my PhD I had to fill out a survey – but I just don’t know where to access them.

To determine the number of Master’s students our best estimate (an underestimate) comes from NSERC. A total of 1764 applied for a Master’s Level NSERC scholarship in 2008. That means even including Master’s students there are probably no more than 4300 graduate students in Canada pursuing graduate degrees in the sciences.

What fraction of these science students receive government funding from either CIHR or NSERC?

Again, we can only make our best guess, which is likely to be an underestimate. In 2008, NSERC gave a total of 1304 awards to Master’s students, a success rate of 74%. For doctoral students, NSERC gave out a total 1051 awards, a success rate of 66%. At CIHR, the success rate is 15.7% for the 2006 year, which means that 139 doctoral students received some kind of award. So more than half of the graduate students in Canada (58%) received an award from one of the tri-councils. And that's not including the two-year postdoctoral fellowship that one generally applies for during the last year of the PhD.

In my mind, 58% is not a small fraction.

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.

At NSERC you can receive 2years of funding like you've suggested. I believe that if you receive a PGS M (?) it's typically for 2 years. So the fraction of Master's students who don't have to take on teaching assistantships (TA) from the start of their degrees is 33%. Again not a small fraction.

The second issue I have with this reader's comments is that even students who TA will be affected by this budget, especially in the long term. Although Harper has slyly increased graduate funding, after 2 years, levels revert back. So all that extra money that was thrown at grad students doesn't get shifted back into the primary research grant programs, it's gone - Poof! This will trickle down to affect the supervisors who often supplement TAships from their research grants.

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?)

I agree that TAing is an invaluable experience but you are completely naive if you believe teaching experience is considered equivalent to a good publication record.

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.

I guess you’ve never heard the term “government lackey.” They were ordered to do it. Here’s a quote from Suzanne Fortier, president of NSERC,

"It has been a real pleasure for us to work with the Hon. Gary Goodyear. He has already proven himself a champion of the science and technology community."

Enough said.

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.

Lab space is great but what do want the PI’s to fill it with? Funding the basics of science includes providing money to buy the equipment, chemicals, the field gear, basic salaries of lab techs, graduate students, post-docs, and research associates.

Canada is spending less on R&D and as a result putting many people out of work. This article suggests that the benefit of university R&D is two percent of Canada’s annual GDP or $15 billion, translating into 150,000 and 200,000 jobs. The point is that it shouldn't really be a choice both are important and in Harper's budget it is clearly a choice.

"Things have not gone dramatically bad under the Conservative government, but there is a lack of understanding of how scientific research works. We are getting mixed messages. On the one hand the government is investing in infrastructure. On the other hand, they are not investing in the research that people have to carry out in the labs being funded. What message is the scientific community to take from that?" Arthur Carty, now the director of the Institute of Nanotechnology at the University of Waterloo and former president of the National Research Council.

Today's funding rates for academic research are well below 20 per cent. I'm all for funding graduate students. But frankly, where are all these graduate students going to do research if fewer and fewer labs are being funding? Ultimately it means a limited number of research programs and a narrower scope of questions being asked. I'm guessing that graduate students in labs with 14 people don't get much attention or time with the PI, who is chasing after the next big grant. And with Obama giving $11 billion to the U.S. equivalent of Canada's science councils, how long do you think it will be before our young scientific talent goes south?

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.

If you look at the revenue streams of, say the University of British Columbia, they included government grants and contracts (federal and provincial), student fees, investment income and one-time donations. In 2008/2009, at UBC, student fees made up only 30-40% of the income revenue. My guess is that tuition fees cover operating costs like salaries, supplies, scholarships, interest on long term debt and not capital costs. As you’ve pointed out the University of British Columbia has found other ways to pay for infrastructure. Universities are going to have to get creative in order to survive this type of economic downturn. Tuition increases will be the least of your worries.

Scientists across the board take issue with Harper's choices (budget and personnel). At a time when both Obama and Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown have decided that investment in science is a national priority, why hasn't our leader?