I think I've seen Bob

I finally saw SuperSizeMe. Although I haven't eaten fast food for almost 12 years, I'm pretty sure this species of monkey is rather common around McDonalds.

Unbelievable

A DNA company (who shall remain nameless) wants to sequence the genome of a man (who shall also remain nameless), who lived like he was trying to kill himself when he was younger, to figure out why he is still alive. And no, it wasn't Keith Richards, apparently he was too busy starring in zombie movies.

Sounds like a marketing ploy to me. Since when did celebrities start selling science?

Hmmm, I wonder if Russell Crowe is available....

Slow Science Gets the Shaft - Part Deux

Earlier this week, I had an encounter with a collaborator of mine who is an established researcher at a well-known university. After I recounted my tale of experimental woe he said to me, "You should pursue this it sounds like a really interesting problem and could turn out to be very cool." My answer, "I would but I don't really have the time. My supervisor Dr.Add'EmUp has to apply for a grant soon and he would really like to have this experiment finished and the paper submitted." He nodded, acknowledging the situation and said, "Yes of course. Of primary importance is getting that paper done."

This anecdote is my way of saying, that as academic scientists we make choices on a daily basis to pursue what is expedient at the cost of what may turn out to be interesting, all because of the lack of time. This rushed time frame creates an environment that does not support slow science. And it made me think back to my first post on Slow Science Gets The Shaft: Part 1. And the supposed follow-up that I said I would write and never did. Well folks, here it is. Part 2. Albeit, terribly, terribly slow (bad pun intended) to arrive. It’s a novel – so get yourself a cup of java and a healthy gluten free muffin and sit ‘er down.

In February the Lenski lab celebrated the 50,000 generation mark of their long term E.coli experiment. This experiment was started in Feb 1988 with a single genotype or clone (not a single microbial cell). From this single clone, 12 replicate populations were grown in 12 separate liquid environments (12 flasks with Davis Media broth supplemented with glucose and citrate). The lines are identical, except for a neutral marker that distinguishes six of the lines from the other six. Once in the flask, the populations are grown at 37°C for 24 hrs. After 24h, a subset of the population from each of the 12 flasks are transferred to a new flask with fresh media and the whole growth process is started anew. Furthermore every 75-500 generations (depends on which paper you read), samples are frozen down. These then provide a fossil record with which to ask what were the changes and how many occurred over time, etc. In 24h bacteria, divide approximately 6.67x, which means that Lenski and his students/postdocs have been doing this for every day for 7496.25 days or 20 years.

Lenski is a fantastic evolutionary biologist and a visionary. His experimental designs are awesome. He’s TheMan. If you look at the list of former students and postdocs that have come out of his lab, it reads like a Hollywood’s who’s who in evolutionary biology. I realize the term visionary might seem a little extreme to many, but it’s not. The reason is because Lenski had the foresight to recognize that what’s interesting and unpredictable is found, not in the short term, but often emerges from a long-term pattern. Although many organisms can undergo adaptive change in a relatively few generations and strong selection creates observable differences among populations within a species, it is only through the long-term changes that we can really understand what processes were relevant. As Conway Morris has said, “The possible evolutionary routes are many, but the destinations limited.” As a young academic, Lenski had to invest time and money to follow his curiousity about science, in a way that today’s young tenure track academics, limited by the drive to get tenure and funding, can’t do.

Did it pay off? Yes, of course. Work from these populations demonstrate parallel phenotypic evolution, changes in morphology relative to the ancestor, the evolution of increased DNA supercoiling with parallel changes in gene expression profiles, and the evolution of mutator phenotypes. But there are two major findings that came out only after the experiment was run for 20 years. First last fall, this paper came out in Nature. It showed that the rate of adaptation, as measured by the number of beneficial mutations accrued over time, exhibits a clock-like regularity. This clock-like behaviour is often expected from neutral evolution but not necessarily from adaptive change. Lenskiites were not the first to show this surprising result, Wichman and colleagues (2005), demonstrated a similar result with a bacteriophage growing in a chemostat for 13,000 generations. Whether macroevolution is nothing more than an aggregate of many small events, as Sean Carroll (2007) suggests is only explainable by experiments that quantify those events over the long term.

The second very cool result was that a key innovation happened in one of the replicate populations. Typically, under oxygen rich conditions, E.coli eats and metabolizes glucose (its carbon source), with no ability to use citrate as an energy source. Well guess what? In one of the replicate populations, a citrate-using genotype finally evolved at generation 31,500. That a key innovation evolved so late in the experiment, is telling about the importance of doing long-term studies.



In 2002, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant published a 30-year study that showed how the direction and magnitude of selection fluctuates wildly over the long term. Environmental change and infrequent hybridization led to a phenotypic trajectory in the Galapagos finches that was not predictable in the short term. Both Lenskis work and the Grants study, however pale in comparison to the Park Grass experiment started by John B. Lawes and Joseph H. Gilbert in 1856 at Rothamsted, Hertfordshire, England. This experiment is the longest running ecological experiment in the world and over 170 publications have come out of it. Although it was started to test how different fertilizers would improve yield, it has since inspired new ecological theory (resource ratio hypotheses), demonstrated long term population dynamics related to life history not detectable over a shorter time period, and provided examples of local adaptation, reproductive isolation and drift. More importantly what this experiment and the two other long-term studies show is that these types of experiments grow in value with time. Although conceived to investigate one scientific question, they can be used to answer a multitude of interesting and often unexplored areas.

The benefits of long term studies like this one seem obvious and yet it is no surprise that they are rare. In fact, in the book The Clock of the Long Now, Stewart Brand laments that science today “is more often driven at a commercial or even fashion velocity than at the deliberate pace of governance or the even slower pace of nature. “ He offers seven reasons for why more scientists are not performing this kind of research.

1. Long term studies aren’t about proving or disproving hypotheses.
2. They don’t generate quick papers, the coin of science
3. They bear no relation to scientific fashion, where the excitement is
4. Not subject to money making patent or copyright.
5. They die when the primary researcher dies.
6. Extremely difficult to maintain funding
7. Archives are expensive and a hassle to service and keep accessible.

There are many short term studies that don’t use hypothesis driven research. We only need to look to the new discipline of bioinformatics to see examples of research that look for patterns in DNA sequence and expression data. Furthermore, I disagree with his last point. In such a computer advanced and internet driven society, the database and archival capacity of computers is enormous and the internet makes accessibility less of a problem. I think, that what explains why we don't see many long term experiments, is largely due to the structure and incentive model of granting agencies and academic institutions, specifically in North America.

Long-term experiments or studies require a scientist who is patient, thorough, and slow. The superstars in my field are anything but slow. Instead, as Brand states they tend to “track noisy signals too closely and confuse themselves by making changes before the effects of previous actions are clear.” In other words, publish one paper and then six months later publish another renouncing the results of the first. Why? Because that is how the game is played. The current game rewards prolific at the expense of being profound.

(Although I've heard the common refrain from faculty that some members of a search committee do look for quality, I wonder how many of them have actually read any of the papers from the job candidates. And if that assessment of quality is based on the journal's impact factor or the faculty member's own assessment of the candidate's science? It seems to me that there is a clear unwritten understanding that not every paper that gets into those high impact journals is actually profound and quality science. Here again the time factor creates an atmosphere of rush.)

Prolific is what gets you the chance at a t-t job, grants and ultimately the sweetest of all carrots - tenure. The system in the US (maybe less so in Canada) doesn’t support patient, thorough, slow, and profound science. Here in the US, despite being hired by colleagues, a good scientist can find themselves fired by these same people in 3-5 years when they go up for tenure. Fired or given terminal contracts simply because they didn't have the requisite number of publications or a lack of external funding. But really, how many are actually lucky enough to get funding when success rates at NIH and NSF are 7-12%. In Canada, this doesn’t happen. Once hired as an assistant professor, it’s rare that you don’t get tenure. The screening process for tenure is in the hiring, as my PhD supervisor once told me.

An environment that uses a carrot (tenure) and stick (terminal contract) incentive model narrows people’s focus and destroys creativity. If you don’t believe me, listen to the facts put forward by Daniel Pink, in his TED talk (it's worth 17 minutes of your time) on the science of motivation. Why would you spend time doing science that you think is worthwhile when it doesn’t get you the carrot. Instead, the choice is obvious, you do science that you know will work, ie get you the publications, the grants, all in the drive for tenure. This carrot and stick model leaves no room for innovation and creativity. In fact, TheDude, a tenured professor at a prestigious university told me, “Academia is broken. It's out of control. Getting tenure is the part that makes it broken.” He advises his students to do whatever it takes to get tenure and then “You can start doing the science you really think is worthwhile.” But I wonder what does that say about the science you do up until that point? And really by the time you do get tenure, if all your training is focused on routine, obvious, mechanical science, will you be practiced in innovative thinking such that you will even know which questions to ask?

A second effect that this “if you do this then you will get this or else” atmosphere does is it creates and attracts a particular type of scientist to academia and selects against another. One academic I know, has said that he doesn’t participate in a project unless he sees a publication in it for himself. Cutthroat, yes. But, at least honest. I can think of several colleagues of mine who are so much smarter than the known superstars in my field, both in terms of the quality of science and the level of innovation in their science. But they won’t make it. Why? Because they don’t want to publish just anything for the sake of publishing. And, they would argue, isn’t there enough shit to wade through already? Instead they want the work to matter. They would much rather have solid, well thought out, and fully explored ideas in 3 papers than 10 papers that either test the obvious, review a topic that has already been reviewed, or just do acceptable science. Again words from TheDude, “The problem is the number of papers that anyone individual produces is out of control. If I were the king I would eliminate half the journals especially N and S and limit people to publishing only two papers a year.”

My feeling is that somewhere between the two extremes is probably the right place. Half baked ideas are okay to publish as long as the author acknowledges the limitations and the caveats associated with their incompleteness. And we definitely need innovation and profound, thoughtful scientists. After all, diversity is the stuff of evolution. And progress is only achieved when there is diversity. So the real question is can academia in its current state support both types of scientists (fast and slow) and both types of studies (short and long term)? My belief is that it cannot in its current form. What will be the effect in the long term on the quality of academic science?

“We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages.” Darwin (1859).

I guess we shall just have to wait to see the outcome of this long-term experiment.




Interested in reading some of the papers I cited? See below:

Barrick, J. E., D. S. Yu, S. H. Yoon, H. Jeong, T. K. Oh, D. Schneider, R. E. Lenski, and J. F. Kim. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature 461:1243-1247.

Blount et al. (2008) Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escheria coli. PNAS 105:7899-7906.

Brand, S. (1999) The Clock of the Long Now: time and responsibilities.

Carroll et al. (2007) Evolution on ecological time-scales. Functional Ecology 21: 387-393.

Grant, P.R. and Grant, R. (2002) Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin’s finches. Science 296: 707-711.

Conway Morris, S (2003) Life's Solution. Cambridge Uni Press, Cambridge, UK.

Silvertown et al. (2006) The Park Grass Experiment 1856-2006: its contribution to ecology. Journal of Ecology 94: 801-814.

Wichman, H.A., J. Millstein, and J.J. Bull. (2005) Adaptive molecular evolution for 13,000 phage generations: a possible arms race. Genetics 170:19-31.

Small world network of a small town

Today, I was walking on my way to the OnlyHippieCafe to do some work. And I ran into three people I knew. No matter what you do here, you always run into someone you know. And if you don't run into someone you know, it's more than likely that the person sitting at the next table knows someone you know quite well.


A few days ago, HippieHusband and I went out for dinner with ForBetterOrWorse and his wife. ForBetterOrForWorse was a post-doc at SmallUniversity who looks exactly like the cartoon version of the husband (John Patterson) in Lynn Johnston's For Better or For Worse). I used to have a blogpost on this guy and his interactions in the department but since I was outed, I have deleted a number of older posts. ForBetterOrForWorse is no longer a post-doc in the department because his contract ended, so for us, this couple qualified as "the outside the university" friends. We were so thrilled to have dinner with this couple because they were disconnected to SmallUniversity. Apparently, disconnected isn't really what we wanted. We spent the entire night bitching and ranting about postdocdom and academia. Most of it involved updating them on HippieHusband's outrageous situation.

It turns out, no surprise, they really aren't that disconnected - in fact, some of the recurring characters in this ridiculous fiction of HippieHusband's are people they socialize with. I'll admit that ForBetterOrForWorse and his wife really don't qualify as "outside the university" friends.

This led HippieHusband and I to think about out how we could make friends with people who had no connection to SmallUniversity.
I'm not sure that it's even possible to have friends that have no association with the university. Here in SmallTown, I swear, it's not 6 degrees of separation but more like 1-2 degrees.

Now, if I HippieHusband and I had kids, SmallTown would be a great place to meet "disconnected" people because it's populated by people with kids (pun intended).

As is often the case with small world networks, it is characterized by cliques or sub-networks. So in SmallTown, I think of two, possibly three cliques: the Hippies, the "intellectual" elite (SmallUniversity), and the Fundamental Christians. Within each of these groups, any one person is highly connected to any other person.

Although I'm sure that these types of subnetworks existed in BigCity, Canada, I was less impacted by their presence on a day to day basis. At least while at LargeUniversityinCanada, I had tons of friends who had 'nothing' to do with the University. This was due, in part, to the fact that I could join different groups and meet a diversity of people. And if they did have a connection, it felt so far removed that I never felt my life was small.

And that really is the issue. SmallTown just seems to be getting smaller.

There is one good thing about a small town that isn't always true in the big city. People take the time to care. On Friday of last week, HippieHusband and I were "stranded" because I had lost the car key. I couldn't for the life of me remember where or when I last had them. And if you knew me, this lost key business would not be surprising at all. Here's a good example of past key transgressions:

One day, I was sitting in my office, lost in thesis, when BestFriend called. At the time, BF was living in another BigCity in Canada. Without so much as a Hello, how are you? She asked if I had lost my keys.

"No. Of course not." I said, rolling my eyes.
"Are you sure?"
"Yes, they're right he- Oh shit I've lost my keys."
"They're in the women's washroon on the third floor."
"WTF, how do you know?"

Apparently an email had gone out across the gradslist, stating that a set of keys had been found in the women's washroom on the third floor of the building that I worked in.

Good grief.

I figured that the car key had entered The Darkroom of the Universe. And well, frankly, it was one less thing to worry about now.

But on Sunday, believe it or not, someone put up a notice, saying "Car key found. Please call --- --- ----."

So I called. The person at the other end had left it in a desk drawer just outside the door of our building. If this was LargeUniversityinCanada, that desk would be in someone's apartment as a "found item."

And all of a sudden I realized that yes, SmallTown was in fact small, and yes there wasn't a whole lot of culture or restaurants, and yes, it would be hard to find "outside university" friends, and yes, people here aren't really that bad and they do take the time to care.

But thank god, it's only temporary.

Why small universities need to step up.

Today, I awoke from a dream feeling like I had been hit by a U-haul truck. In the dream, I was trying to take a hot bubble bath - one of my favourite ways to relax. But I couldn't even get into the water because floating at the surface were a ton of 10 uL pipette tips as if someone had taken one of those filter-tip boxes and just dumped it into the bathtub . Before I could get in, I had to fish each one individually out of the tub. Then, just as I had fished out the last of the pipette tips and was about to get in, I was interrupted by a banging at the door. I opened the door to see one of my old boyfriends standing, as always, like a peacock who thinks his tail is more magnificent than it really is. He looked awful (small mercies). The last time I saw this guy - he was pretty fit but now looking at him his face was all pudgy and red surrounded by this black, curly, ear-length hair. He didn't say anything then just disappeared. I closed the door and was met with yet another interruption. Needless to say I never got to relax.

This was one of the more straightforward dreams I have ever had and I'm totally aware that it is a metaphor for my current life. Normally my dreams are vivid and suspense-filled movies where I am chasing or being chased, searching for lost treasure, zipping in and through time, taking part in some major espionage, living in a concentration camp, the list goes on. Once, I was a big, black, male jazz singer and HippieHusband awoke to me shouting in a gravelly voice, "Bourbon, oh yeah bourbon." Geez, I've never tasted bourbon before in my life.

It's only when I'm truly stressed by the everyday that I have the tedious and highly mundane dreams. When I was in the deepest and darkest part of the Ph.D. thesis, I had a dream in which I stepped into a graphical representation of my data to examine each and every datapoint. Yawn!

Well, I think that HippieHusband's current work situation is interfering with my ability to relax and enjoy the holidays. It's funny because everyone that we spoke to in BigCity Canada about the situation all responded with the same answer, "You can't stay there." This statement got me thinking a lot about how hard it will be for this SmallUniversity or any small university to attract and keep smart, independent, hard-working, and productive post-docs.

If the supervisor within a small university can't offer a working environment that is fun, stimulating, and most of all respectful (quitting a collaboration and firing your post-doc from the lab is just not respectful), then really why would anyone in their right mind stay?

What exactly does SmallUniversity in SmallTown America have to offer? There is little intellectual stimulation from within department because a) there are few journal clubs of note, b) the labs are small c) few invited seminars by cutting edge colleagues, and d) even fewer post-docs outside your lab. Outside the university environment, in the SmallTown there isn't a whole lot to do. Unlike BigCity, if all hell breaks out with your supervisor at SmallUniversity in SmallTown, you can't retreat to that yoga class, or go to that alternative cinema, or find theatre to attend, or de-stress at a concert, or go and take an art class at the art school, or eat wonderful food at great restaurants, or just hang out with friends in really cool places.

If you work at BigUniversity in BigCity, then as a supervisor you can be an asshole to your postdoc and probably get away with it. Why? The post-doc will probably stay because if you are a supervisor are at a BigUniversity then you are probably hot shit and can offer that post-doc something more - I call it the "by association." Plus the post-doc has colleagues and resources outside the lab that allow for intellectual stimulation. And finally, they get to live in BigCity X with all of its cultural activities and a myriad of restaurants.

So I believe the SmallUniversity tenured faculty have to STEP-UP when they learn that a post-doc is being mistreated and bullied. They need to advocate for their postdocs. And yes, I purposefully say "their" post-docs. Even though the post-doc is not directly in their lab, the presence of this post-doc contributes to the overall intellectual attractiveness of the university - making it a place that new Ph.D students might want to go. They can provide knowledge and advise to Ph.D. students not just in their own lab but to those students in the department. They are potential collaborators and colleagues. They are the ones to start those journal clubs that enrich the intellectual life of the school. The postdoc carries the weight and expertise of a faculty member in small labs where there are no lab technicians. And ultimately, they produce the papers that allow the faculty in the department to look good and get grants.

So if you think that the biggest attraction to the department offers a work-life balance or how inter-disciplinary collaborations at the university make it an exciting place to work - think again.

People don't quit environments they quit their bosses.

Creationism and college students - the battle for young minds.

Creationism is a popular belief in the United States and not surprisingly here in SmallTown, religion is ubiquitous. In a town of 21,000 people, there are 21 different churches, that's 1 church for every thousand people. There's one church that takes up a entire block of the town and is the size of Walmart. On Sunday morning it's parking lot is packed, I'm not kidding, packed with cars. The density of churches here is akin to the density of Tim Hortons in eastern Canada. I guess we Canadians prefer the sweet cakey goodness of doghnuts to hell and damnation.

(At least this Canadian does.)

I'm not a religious person at all, although I grew up in a family where religion (not Christianity) was a big deal. And in the last few years of my dad's life, he and I would have these phone conversations that would trickle down into the difficult waters of my non-religious beliefs.


I don't object to other people holding whatever beliefs they want, but I seriously object when those belief systems are used to discriminate against others or attempts are made to disguise faith/belief within a scientific framework. Religion is not science. Science is the use of "evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process" (National Academy of Sciences, 2008). Religon is founded in belief and faith.

The National Academy of Sciences has officially stated that "acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith," but they are clear that intelligent design or creationism just shouldn't be taught as equals in a science class.

That's why when I read this new study in the May issue of BioScience, I was both concerned and happy that someone had finally suggested there may be a link to how college students recieve scientific facts, evolution to be precise. This study found that college students will either accept or question evolution, depending on how it was treated in high school. In a survey of 1,008 students taking introductory biology classes at the University of Minnesota, researchers asked students if their high-school biology course included (a) evolution but not creationism, (b) creationism but not evolution, (c) both evolution and creationism, or (d) neither evolution nor creationism. They then used a Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) (Rutledge and Sadler 2007) to determine how they viewed evolution.

The study showed that students whose high-school biology class included creationism (with or without evolution) were more likely to accept creationism than were students whose high-school biology class included only evolution. Furthermore, students whose high-school biology course included evolution (and not creationism) were more likely to accept evolution-based statements than were students whose high-school biology course did not include evolution. Seventy-two to 78 percent of students exposed to evolution agreed that it is scientifically valid while 57 to 59 percent of students who were exposed to creationism agreed that it can be validated.

What surprised me the most was to read that approximately 20 to 35 percent of high-school biology teachers in the United States include creationism in their science curricula. And that reports that suggest one-fourth of biology teachers believe that creationism has a valid scientific foundation (Moore and Kraemer 2005).

The survey also had some interesting comments written by students. Of the 45.3 percent of students that advocated creationism, some wrote,

I believe in creationism and intelligent design.
I do not believe [evolution] happened.

And from those that expressed uncertainty (34 percent)

I am a little confused about it.
I really don't know what to think.
I don't know enough on the issue to have much [of] an opinion.

Shocking.

As scientists, we must be concerned about the malpractice of high school science teachers because they have an impact on a new generation of citizenry. We are educating students who lack the ability to understand and accept one of the most important and unifying ideas of modern science. The distinction between science and religion is necessary in order to make informed and thoughtful decisions about a vast majority of social and political issues that can have enormous consequences for future generations. Imagine trying to make decisions about combating epidemics, like SARS, without consideration to the fact that organisms evolve.

Furthermore, what kind scientists are in the making in America if intelligent design is seen as valid science? These types of views reject scientific findings, well-established facts, and scientific methods in favour of unsubstantiated claims.

Science is embedded in a society. And thus the types of questions asked and funded, scientific norms, and the trajectories of scientists are affected by cultural and political values. Right now, Americans lead the world in scientific discovery and innovation, but if these young voices have any say in political policies, science in the US could end up like bourgeois pseudosciences in Russia under Stalin - on its way to watering their crops with gatorade.

Guns, Germs and Canadians.

I had a really interesting discussion in the lab today about the issue of gun ownership.

Some backstory first. I've mentioned on this blog before that my supervisor, Dr. Add'emUp is a mathematician who started his own lab quite recently, as of this summer, in fact. But what I didn't mention is that Dr. Add'emUp shares lab space with another faculty member, SmallContradictions. SmallContradictions. She is doing really really cool research. She has a single PhD student and a lab technician, SouthernBelle. SouthernBelle is a petite blonde woman who has this cute little expression she uses all the time in place of swearing, "son of a biscuit."

Today SouthernBelle and I started off having a conversation about fishing. I told her that I had never been fishing. My BigCity parents' idea of a vacation meant staying in five-star hotels (international level, of course) and camping well, that was for 'the poor folk.' This is a reflection of their immigrant mentality, where you knew you "had arrived" if you owned a own monster home with a monster garage. And even though you had a monster garage both cars were on the driveway - one of which was a Cadillac or Mercedes.

I learned about camping and canoeing from my first husband (ugh, using that phrase "my first husband" feels Liz Tayloresque), who took me to some marvellous places, and where I fell in love with the outdoors. Now, I can't wait for the weather to warm up so HippieHusband and I can go backcountry camping, hiking, and canoeing around here. Unfortunately, in all the years of camping, I never went fishing.

SouthernBelle inumerated the joys of fishing and then somehow we came to the issue of guns.

"You know I've never held a gun before." I said to SouthernBelle.
To which she replied, "You've NEVER held gun a before. I can't believe that! "
"You have, then?" I asked.
"Of course, I grew up around guns."
"So, so you have a gun in your house?"

She then proceeded to list off six different varieties of guns, described by their numbers. Six guns! She has six guns. One of them is always loaded - kept in her gun safe of course. And her 11-year old has his own gun. SouthernBelle is a strong believer in liberty and gun ownership is one expression of that liberty. So gun registries and regulations are just an affront to her liberty. Germs that need to be eradicated. Her rationale is that she must be able to defend herself because what if the government tries to take her freedom?

(Do Americans really believe there is that possiblity?)

Herein lies the difference between the Canadian and the American. Gun ownership is simply an extension of the American mistrust of the government. Unlike Canadians, the Americans I have encountered don't actually believe that they as individuals can affect change in the government (though this might be changing under Obama). They also strongly believe that only no.1 has their best interest at heart and is fully capable of taking care of their affairs meaning "the State has no place in the bedroom of the nation."

America has a split personality. On the one hand there is a group that are strongly libertarian - their money is theirs and they have a right to spend it where they want, and consequently they're averse to spending any money on social safety net. Nonetheless, these same people believe in the huge war on drugs, social welfare for big banks, and a foreign policy that gets them up to their eyeballs in mud because they've spent too much time in other nations bedrooms. While the other personality of America may reflect a morality similar to Canada, there is still a strong undercurent of these libertarian views that restricts how many social safety nets they are willing to support.

I think that Canadians, before Stephen Harper, did really trust the government and I for one, do still believe that we can as individuals have an impact on political policy. For example, we right letters to our political representatives. When I mentioned this to Mr.Enthusiasm - he and his wife laughed at the idea and said, "how quaint that you believe in your political power."

Yes, yes I do.

I'm pretty sure most people in Canada feel that society universal access to health care, social security, welfare, subsidized public transport, and strong labour laws are important to support because they prevent some degree of poverty. While we grumble about our high taxes, ultimately we know that our money is going to go to support one of these services. And I for one am happy if my hard earned money helps keep someone off the street or provides a single mom with support services.

But there is a small part of me that wants to know what that feels like to hold a gun. So, I'll remember those Canadian ideals, when I'm at the shooting range.

The Value of Science in Canada: An Open Letter

I guess our good Minister of Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, was wrong when he said, in the March 2 issue of the Globe and Mail that his governement critics are few.

Now, I know that we all get confused with our greater than > and less than < signs, but here's a little mnemonic to help you remember, Gary:

"a few" < 2100 Alligator wants to eat 2100, so "a few" is less than 2100.

2100 > "a few" Alligator wants to eat 2100, so "a few" is less than 2100.

Thanks to Sandwalk for first posting a link to the open letter written to the Prime Minister and the two opposition leaders. Add your name to the list of 2100 Canadian researchers to protest the recent cuts to our tri-councils: NSERC, CIHR, and SSHRC. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you can read the backstory in one of my previous blogs.

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.

Are Canadians taking jobs from Americans?

I tried to post this story earlier but for some reason it was deleted - so I've updated it and here it is:

HippieHusband was talking with Bearded Uncle tonight and I guess Bearded Uncle was worried about whether or not we would be able to get our visas renewed. Apparently, in Canada they are hearing more and more stories about U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers accusing Canadians of stealing jobs from Americans.

But I could find only one story at the CBC that suggested border officers had turned away a Canadian from entering the US. This quote pretty much sums it up.

"He looked at me, and in a yelling voice he said, 'You're friggin' stealing jobs away from American citizens,' and I tried telling him that I wasn't."

Of course, HippieHusband and I have our own tale of a 'border skirmish.' But the article and Bearded Uncle's fear made me wonder if stereotypes really are just "selfish memes." Selfish memes, according to David Sloan Wilson are traits that spread by cultural evolution. They help us identify in-group/out-group membership. When we question these memes or debunk them, we are questioning everything associated with them, in other words, our own in-group membership.

And I know that before I left Canada I held some pretty strong myths about Americans myself. And really it goes without say but both my colleagues and friends in SmallTown are intelligent, caring, Americans who are trying to live healthy lives.

I thought it would be an interesting 'exorcise' to hear what myths Americans have about Canadians. Here are just a few stereotypes that I've heard either amongst my Canadian friends or perpetuated by the Canadian media about Americans:

1. Americans are loud, obnoxious and rude.
















2. Americans are provincial, ignorant and stupid when it comes to what's going on outside their borders.and lastly,

3. Americans are seriously obese.

I'm interested in what fabulous tales you've heard of the peoples of the 'great white north' (Canada) ?

A priviledged view of American healthcare.

On Saturday, I went to see a family physician for a stomach problem. The family physician I saw, recommended that I call a surgeon immediately. On Monday, I called to make an appointment and that very day I was seen by the surgeon. On Wednesday I had surgery.

(I am going to spare you the details of my physical health, other than to say, that as a metaphor for my life it is most appropriate.)

In a matter of 4 days, I had gone from seeing a family physician to having surgery. In Canada, this process would have taken 6 months, at best. Nor would I have been able to directly contact the specialist myself. Instead, the family physician would have arranged the visit.

Mind you, surgery would not have cost $7000 in Canada. Luckily HippieHusband and I have insurance coverage. But even with insurance coverage, we will still be paying a pretty penny. The high cost of healthcare is largely due to the presence of the middlemen, i.e. the insurance companies. In Canada, "we spend 48 per cent less on health care than the US does -- $6,714 U.S. per person versus $3,678 U.S. in Canada." (Source is this article.)

Since this is my first time having surgery, I can only compare my experience here to what others have told me about their experiences in Canada. But as far as I can tell, the system here works, if you have the money to pay for it.

One nurse that I spoke with during my pre-op said that they like to think of the hospital as a five star hotel. Dang straight it is - I had my own hospital room with its own bathroom, loveseat, flatscreen TV, and a window to boot. Not only that the hospital did not have that horrible mixture of sick and antiseptic perfumed air. It was on the contrary, rather pleasant.

The other surprising thing was how pleasant and friendly all the health care professionals were down here. In Canada, it's not that doctors and nurses aren't friendly, they're just overworked and tired. If you walk into a hospital in Canada, the place is packed with people. Those waiting to be treated and those waiting for those who are waiting to be treated.

Here the hospital was empty. I don't know if this is because I was in SmallTown in the middle of nowhere America or because this is the state of hospitals in general down here.

(I mean if health care is so expensive and its a choice between a roof over your head and treatment for an illness, maybe living with illness isn't a bad option.)

I had several nurses taking care of me simultaneously. One came in to check my heart rate and pulse. Another came in to give me an IV and check my oxygen levels. A third came in to make sure that I was comfortable and that I had a hospital bracelet indicating an allergy to latex. Each time someone came in, they made sure I knew exactly what was going to happen.

Finally, a nurse anesthetist came in to brief me on the general anaesthetic and its side effects. And then I had to sign a bunch of forms. This was the other big difference. Here I was constantly signing papers, liability waivers, privacy forms, acknowlegement of side-effects, agreement to treatment, etc. It's kinda crazy all the paperwork.

When I was wheeled into surgery, though I couldn't see clearly (because without my glasses, I'm legally blind), there were at least 5 different nurses waving at me and there was some funky music playing in the background. The next thing I knew I awoke in my snazzy five star hotel room. HippieHusband was by my side. Although I was still groggy, I remember a nurse asking me to sign yet another document.

(There is serious anxiety here about malpractice suits. With reason, Americans are a litigious bunch.)

Then I was given a muffin and fresh peaches to eat. I have had hospital food in Canada and it pales in comparison. But I guess if you charge $7000 you better provide some pretty nice eatin's. Once I had walked, peed, and ate something I was discharged from the hospital and the surgeon gave me his cell phone number and told me to call if I needed anything.

The next day, the surgeon called to see how I was doing. Crazy, huh. I'm pretty sure that doctors in Canada don't have the time to do follow-up calls themselves.

Getting sick in the US is a scary thing, especially after the way Michael Moore paints the health care system in his movie, Sicko. During pre-op I saw a financial counsellor to try and figure out exactly how much this was going to cost. When the financial counsellor told me $7000, I nearly fell out of my chair. And I can tell you at that point I wished I was back in Canada.

When it was all said and done, I feel less intimated by the system here. But I still find that my American colleagues are constantly telling me about the problems they see in our health care system.

Is the US model of healthcare better? Yes, treatment is fast, effective, and you are made as comfortable as possible. Health care is a business here and customer satisfaction is the goal. But customer satisfaction is the goal only for the lucky who have good health care insurance. And even then, this system is maze of paperwork, rules, and bureaucracy.

In Canada, people don't stick with a terrible job just because of the health care. They don't have to worry about a loss of income if a family member gets sick. Not only that Americans are less likely to have a family physician and more likely to live with health issues and forgo necessary medicines. And frankly, if the surgery weren't necessary I would have just lived with the problem as many Americans do.

However, the health of a people is reflected by the health care system and this article suggests that because of universal healthcare,

"Canadians live longer than Americans [80.3 years compared to 78.6 years] and appear to have similar or better health outcomes in most aspects of health care."

Now as I sit here in bed, recovering, I am well aware that universal health care comes with some trade-offs, ie overworked and tired professionals, a shortage of equipment, and long waiting periods. But you know what, in the end, if it meant that the average Joe Canadian had a chance at health care, I would have no problem waiting 6 months for treatment.

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?

I hang my head in shame.

Ugh, it's gone from bad to worse. Our American neighbours have hung their heads in shame for eight long years because a monkey ran the oval office. Now I'm afraid, Canadians, it might be our turn.

When asked about his belief on evolution in an interview on Monday with The Globe and Mail, federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear said this,

"I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate.”

What's disturbing about this comment is not the fact that Goodyear is a Christian but that he has equated evolution as a religious system.

Later Goodyear proclaimed he did believe in evolution but said this in an interview with CTV,

“We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant and that is why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong.”

Huh, that's a new one. In all my years of teaching biology no undergraduate has ever been that creative (and I use that term intentionally) and defined evolution as walking on cement either in running shoes or high heels.

Goodyear has admitted to nothing because he has simply changed the definition of evolution.

I guess all those biology textbooks are wrong. Or Gary if you have forgotten what a book is, it is also described on wikipedia as,

a change in the inherited traits of a populaton of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection.

You know, I kind of expect ridiculous statements and sly doublespeak from the Harper cronies, but not from the Liberals. Liberal science critic Marc Garneau (former astronaut) said in an interview on Tuesday that believing in evolution is not a job requirement for the science minister.

“It is a personal matter. It is a matter of faith.… I don't think it prevents someone from being a good minister.”

Sure that's the point Marc, science and faith are different things. Evolution is scientific fact and well faith is NOT science. Furthermore, it is of grave concern that a Minister who has influence on government funding, holds the view that evolution is equivalent to a religion.

Here I thought that evolution was taught in first year biology at universities across Canada. Something is rotten in the science programmes in Canada, if an astronaut and a chiropractor can't make the distinction between religion and evolution.

We, Canadians are on the verge of a dark age where science and education are no longer about the acquisition of knowledge and understanding of the natural world. Science fosters individualism and promotes biological development, all of which stand in opposition to the Stephen Harper ideology.

Instead, according to Harper, science and education are mere tools to help fill our wallets. It's no coincidence that in the recent budget, $750-million was invested in the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, while at the same time basic research suffered massive cutbacks. As Stephen Harper says,

“In the world of today, scientific and technological innovation is fundamental to economic and social progress....No country can hope to remain prosperous and healthy without reinvesting a substantial portion of its wealth in science and technology.”

Fascism of the pocketbook is still fascism.

I'm not sure if hanging our collective heads in shame is the appropriate response because that implies resignation. Instead, let us take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing, end them.

Turning Back the Clock: Why pay equity is in jeopardy in Canada

I felt better today than I have in a few weeks. I've been so exhausted since my father died. I had forgotten how physically draining dealing with death can be. It also doesn't help that I'm away from all my close friends and family. SmallUniversity in SmallTown can be a very lonely place, and the present circumstances only highlight this isolation.

What really helped was a return to some sort of routine both socially and professionally. I'm actually making progress on the monkey revisions (yeah!) and HippieHusband and I went to play games at MrEnthusiam's house last week. We talked about the insanity that defines our families. And sadly, knowing that the dysfunctional family was so common made me feel better.

So it came then as no surprise that back in Canada another dysfunctional familywas working to create the demise of my happy socialist home. The Canadian government's recent policies have me highly concerned and fearful over the future of Canada.

In addition to devaluing science in Canada, Harper is working to erode the fundamental rights of women. The Budget Implementation Act called Bill C-10 is Harper's way of quietly turning back the clock on pay equity. And he can do this because his budget tabled in February, a 551 page document, focuses on a $40-billion stimulus package. According to the Conservative government, this bill will only be effective if implemented within 120 days, by May 27. But this 551 page document also makes fundamental changes to pay equity, weakens environmental protection, and will make the sale of Crown assets easy.

It's a slippery way for Harper to convert his social conservatism and neocon moral values into legislation under the guise of an economic crisis.

Harper's bill C10 is an attack on pay equity, because it forces pay equity to be dealt with at the bargaining table. It removes the right of federal civil servants to file pay equity complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Instead of pay equity being a fundamental right, such an issue would now be dealt with as part of the normal bargaining process between union and management.

Since when is a woman's constitutional right to be paid fairly something that should be bargained away?

As a fundamental right, it should be entrenched into law. But only two Canadian provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have pro-active pay equity laws requiring public and private sector employers to examine their pay structures for systemic discrimination in wages.

Secondly, the bill uses the term "equitable compensation" instead of the well-known and well-defined term pay equity, thus obfuscating the fact that there exists a systematic wage disparity. According to Behind the Pay Gap, put out by the National Committe on Pay equity one year out of college, full-time working women earn only 80% of the salary of their male colleagues. And 1o years later they have fallen farther behind, earning only 69% as much as men earn. Even in female-dominated areas like education, women still earn only 95% of their male counterparts (in Biological Sciences it is 75%). This study controlled for hours, occupation, parenthood and other factors associated with pay.

Thirdly, bill C-10 suggests that an arbitrator in determining whether wage rates were fair would have to take "market forces" into account. Market forces. Are you fucking kidding me? Are these the same fucking market forces that have led to the collapse of the economies worldwide. And in Antonia Zerbisias column Toronto lawyer, Mary Cornish states that "pay equity was designed specifically to rectify a failure in the market that permitted systemic wage discrimination against women. To turn around and subordinate equity to this same market is to negate the entire exercise."

Lastly, in order to determine "equitable compensation" the bill adds a new evaluation criteria that makes it difficult to establish pay discrimination. If a woman held a job in the RCMP, say radio dispatcher, and she felt there was a pay equity issue, then this bill would require an arbitror to evaluate by making the comparison to similar jobs only within the RCMP. There could be no comparison to similar jobs in the rest of the public sector.

After the Ontario Pay Equity Act was introduced in 1987, the victories that led to salary adjustments all used comparisons outside the specific public sector department in which pay discrimination had taken place.

• secondary school secretaries received an annual increase of $7,680 based on their comparison with a male job class of audio-visual technicians.
• female health technicians were compared to male transportation workers, leading to an increase of $2.79 an hour.
• female-dominated mental health workers were compared to the male personnel officer's job, resulting in a pay equity raise of $2.20 per hour.
• female-dominated police dispatchers were compared to the radio technical supervisors and received an increase of $7,179.00 annually

Wait we have an opposition, with a leader right?

Here is just an excerpt from how our opposition dealt with this. In the House of Commons , Hon. John McKay (Scarborough - Guildwood, Liberal) said before the bill was passed,

Canadians can thank the Liberal Party for C-10. We are very aware that it is an imperfect document. It is full of political provocations. It lacks coherence. It has within it many items of no relevance to a budgetary document such as navigable waters, pay equity and jamming certain public sector employees. It is an obnoxious document. There is no doubt about it.

Many of these items deserve far greater scrutiny than the finance committee was able to provide in the context of trying to get this budget moved along. However, it seems to be in the DNA of the Prime Minister to load up every obnoxious element he can think of in a bill and try to jam the opposition.

In an era when Canadians crave leadership, they get a partisan bully. However, in the judgment of the official opposition, the potential good of an early stimulus package, as amended with the built-in review periods, outweighs the obnoxious elements of C-10. Therefore, we will be supporting it.

Economy before morality. It seems to be in the DNA of all of the liberals to follow their partisan bully, Michael Ignatieff and act like sheep. Canadians, do indeed crave leadership and moral responsibility from those that they have elected to represent them.

I urge you to go here and sign this petition so that we can stop the incremental conversion of our Canadian democracy into a neocon autocracy.

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.

Thankfully Hair Grows Back

I finally gave in and went to a hair salon here in SmallTown. I was terribly afraid because I have seen women's hair in this town and well, mullets, that was a fad gone bad. Okay okay so things aren't really as bad as all that. I'm just a big city snob.

I've been waiting until I go back to BigCity, Canada to see my old hairstylist, KnowsMyHair. But I just can't see anymore under this big mop of black hair. And my bangs are out of control. So I bit the bullet and found a woman at work whose hair was mostly okay and she suggested this place. She said this was the only real salon in SmallTown. When she said that, a shiver went down my spine.

I entered the salon trepidaciously, my fingers constantly finding their way to my long black hair. The salon itself felt like the living room of someone's house, a house probably inherited from grandma. It had weird pastel colours and frilly curtains, with cutsie side tables placed around the different rooms and (help!) country music playing in the background.

One of the hairstylists had two dogs that apparently go with her everywhere including the salon (can this place really be called a salon if there are dogs?). And the customer sitting in her styling chair, had her kids playing off to one corner. Here, most of the salons have little playing areas for kids. Dogs and kids. I like them both, but I don't really want them to be part of my spa experience. I like a salon with a quiet atmosphere, a place that wafts with the smell of apricot and coconut shampoo, not dogpiss and cheap perfume.

(Snob.)

My hairstylist was in the back room. She was a beautiful blonde woman in her early fifties. She was dressed like a small town hairstylist with the acid wash jeans and a frightening shirt, which was a mess of different colours. I thought this is what Madonna would look like if she didn't have access to all that Hollywood bling.

We talked about how I didn't want her to alter the length but really just clean it up and cut my bangs. I showed her a picture of me with the haircut I like on myself and what I wanted her to do. She waved her long manicured fingernails pointing me to the hair washing station and I thought I caught a glimpse of red nail polish in the air. I sat down. Scared for my scalp.

In BigCity, Canada, they provided you with gowns so that hair wouldn't get trapped in your clothes and itch all day long. Then KnowsMyHair would always gives me this wonderful scalp massage with an incredible smelling shampoo. Coconut.

(Sigh.)

Here the hair wash was functional. No gown. And thank god it was short, my scalp hurt from her nails. We walked over to the styling chair, I sat down and she pulled out the scissors and comb. Then I took off my glasses.

(Gulp.)

This is the scariest point for me because without them I am legally blind. I can't see anything without them. No exaggeration. So I put my glasses on again and tried to be explicit when I told her I didn't want too much length taken off. She suggested an inch and I thought, that sounds reasonable. I think she knew I was uneasy because she complimented me on my hair,

"I have never seen such perfect black hair. Usually even kids have at least one or two gray hairs."

"Umm, thanks."

I don't colour my hair, but I didn't tell her that I found a couple of gray hairs two years ago and yanked those babies out. Forget about growing old gracefully. HippieHusband can be the one to grow the grays.

"Don't worry, I'll only take off an inch. A hairstylist' inch,"

winking at me as she widened the gap between her thumb and index finger. So much for relaxing. I took the glasses off again.

During the hair cut, she talked, really she shouted, to all manner of people in the "salon" like the other stylist, the contractor and me. I learned that she was twice divorced, no kids. She was trained in a VeryUpScaleSalon somewhere on the coast, but moved to somewhere IntheMidWest when she got married. After her first divorce, she remarried a man from here and moved to SmallTown somewhere in the Pacific NorthWest. Her first sister had trouble getting pregnant so she took all these drugs to help but they didn't work so she went off of them and dang then she got pregnant. Her second sister also had trouble but eventually got pregnant. She's okay with not having kids, mostly. Every two years she goes back to somewhere on the coast to visit her sisters and their kids. But dang she can only take so much of her family. For 7 years, she owned the salon and then sold it after her second divorce because she had no head for business. She continued to work here but then dang it all it was sold to another woman, who she does not at all get along with. Now after 13 years, she has decided to leave and move elsewhere.

(Dang.)

"Well, honey what do you think?"

I put my glasses back on and the world came into focus again. I looked up and into the mirror. Well, I thought, thankfully hair grows back. I paid the hairstylist and walked out.

The page boy haircut worked for the beatles, right? Maybe it'll work for me?

No more nice girl.

Today I woke up with a fuck-you-attitude.

I know that because of what happened as I was walking to school. I came across a big Dodge Ram truck parked on the sidewalk. It was blocking my way and in order to cross I had to climb an ice bank.

(Here in SmallTown, sidewalks are at a premium. They start up in the middle of nowhere and then end just as abruptly as they started. There might be a sidewalk running for a block on the east side of the street, but then it stops, and if you look across the street, there's the sidewalk again. It's totally random. So as a walker I like use those random pieces of concrete, well, because if you think about it someone took the effort to put them there, albeit randomly. I'm hoping that when Peak Oil really hits, they'll just fill in the holes and then sidewalks will be contiguous again.)

Back to my story. The owner of this big Dodge Ram truck was outside and so in my I'm-from-the-city-fuck-you tone, yours truly called out,

"Sidewalks are for walking not for parking."

The owner, a man, responded, "Sorry Hon, Not today."

Normally, I'd let it drop. But I think it was because he called me "hon." Well, fuck you. So I called back, "Yeah, well you and your small dick will be walking every day after Peak oil."

Probably not such a good idea in frontier land where guns abound and it's open season on irritating little girls.

P.S. I wish that smokers would take their cigarette smoke and stuff it where I don't have to inhale it.

Now I feel better.