Go and make some noise: Town Hall Meeting

For all you Canadian scientists:

NSERC is holding 'town hall' meetings at Canadian Universities at the moment to discuss changes at NSERC. To protest changes to NSERC funding, attend these meetings and speak up for the funding programs that you have benefited from: two year PGS MSc funding, PhD funding, post doctoral funding, etc.

As I get information I will pass it along. The next NSERC town hall meeting is at the University of Alberta on Monday, April 27th (9:30-11:00 a.m.) in Council Chambers, 2-1 University Hall.

Go and make some noise, people.

The Lie continues

Ugh! I think that Nature should have not just printed this bullshit press release without a response from a few Canadian researchers. But on the positive side, when the Canadian Minister feels the need to write a letter to Nature convincing them that Canada supports science, well something is amiss.

Sir

You report researchers' concerns about the Canadian government's support for science in two recent News stories (Nature 457, 646; 2009 and Nature 458, 393; 2009). As Minister of State for Science and Technology, I can say that, despite the global economic situation, the government of Canada remains committed to innovation and discovery. We have increased funding to researchers, both in universities and in the private sector.

In the past three years, for example, we have significantly increased the budgets of federal granting councils, increased scholarships through the Canada Graduate Scholarships Program, and increased the Industrial Research Assistance Program for small and medium-sized businesses. The Budget 2009 announcements include Can$750 million (US$590 million) for the Canada Foundation for Innovation to attract and retain world-leading researchers, and a Can$2-billion infrastructure programme. The government has also put in place two five-year funding agreements with Genome Canada that are worth Can$240 million, to support large-scale, world-class research.

Your readers should therefore rest assured that the government of Canada will continue to fund research for the benefit of all scientists and Canadians.
Gary Goodyear, Minister of Science and Technology

The Canadian government intends on cutting the budgets of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences (NSERC), and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) by $148 million CDN over three years. These three councils provided the dollars that go to basic research.

We might be looking at empty building syndrome in the years to come in Canada.

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?

The Value of Science in Canada

Today I tried to work on revising my FNP, but I found myself incredibly distracted and unfocused. I've received comments from GeneralSolutionGuru and as per usual she has given excellent and detailed criticism. It's amazing, I thought I had nailed the manuscript but as I go through her comments, I think 'why didn't I pick that up', 'oh my god did I really do that' and 'she must think I was on crack when I did that'? And on and on, it goes.

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?

Stephen 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.