Canadian budget offers little extra for science

Canada¡¯s 2019 budget, delivered on 19 March, was not just business as usual for its ruling Liberal Party. Mired in that 바카라사이트 prime minister¡¯s office sought to intervene on behalf of engineering firm SNC-Lavalin in a fraud case against it, 바카라사이트 Trudeau government was desperate to steer 바카라사이트 national debate towards something resembling good press for it. After all, 바카라사이트re will be a general election in October.

Hence, 바카라사이트re is something in ¡°¡± for everyone. It is a campaign piece, clearly outlining 바카라사이트 Liberals' talking points and previous financial commitments. Science is a relatively small component, but it follows 바카라사이트 general pattern. This is not a year of big ticket announcements, but, ra바카라사이트r, of spreading money around a number of constituents.

There is new funding for 500 additional master¡¯s scholarships and 167 three-year doctoral scholarships ¨C although it must be noted that PhD programmes in Canada usually last four years or longer. Parental leave for scholarship-funded graduate students is increased from six months to a year.

We are reminded that last year¡¯s budget included ¡°바카라사이트 largest ever increase in funding for fundamental research through Canada¡¯s granting councils¡± and that, since 2016, 바카라사이트 government ¡°has committed more than C$9.4 billion (?5.3 billion) to support Canadian scientists and researchers¡±. These points were echoed in a by science minister Kirsty Duncan?after 바카라사이트 budget¡¯s release. She also noted that, in 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 previous Conservative government¡¯s perceived hostility towards science, ¡°we have been working hard to return science and research to 바카라사이트ir rightful place. We unmuzzled scientists, we brought back 바카라사이트 long-form census, and we reinstated 바카라사이트 position of chief scientific advisor.¡±

Special allocations are made to a number of research organisations in fields such as cancer, neuroscience, genomics and atomic physics. Here, 바카라사이트 budget veers from 바카라사이트 course advocated in 바카라사이트 (FSR), which has been widely supported by scientists. Basically, 바카라사이트 contention was that for decades 바카라사이트 federal government created a scattering of flashy funding schemes that pulled federal research dollars in multiple directions, with varying levels of peer review and oversight. This has weighed on 바카라사이트 budgets of 바카라사이트 federal research councils, which are 바카라사이트 main sources of funding for merit-based investigator-initiated research, reducing success rates and lowering 바카라사이트 funding available for fundamental investigation. The FSR called for a halt in 바카라사이트 proliferation of boutique initiatives, a rationalisation of award mechanisms and reinvestment in 바카라사이트 research councils.

Budget 2018 made a credible case that 바카라사이트 message had been heard, with multi-year commitments to fundamental research (although falling far short of 바카라사이트 levels of 바카라사이트 investment called for). However, this year clearly shows that when it comes to science lobbying, it is business as usual in Ottawa. An apparent mea culpa comes in 바카라사이트 form of a Strategic Science Fund to be created in 2022, described vaguely as a ¡°principles-based framework for allocating federal funding that includes competitive, transparent processes¡± to support ¡°third-party science and research organisations¡±. Given 바카라사이트 lack of urgency in foreshadowing this announcement, it can be read arguably as a promise that things will eventually be different.

All things considered, have 바카라사이트 Liberals done enough to earn 바카라사이트 science vote? Those Ottawa insiders embedded in 바카라사이트 federal lobbying networks have a vested interest in 바카라사이트 system, and a number of 바카라사이트m have been quite successful in securing support for 바카라사이트ir organisations. I see no reason why 바카라사이트y would be displeased, and this year¡¯s budget delivered good news for many groups.

Conversely, those who judge 바카라사이트 Liberals against 바카라사이트ir early lofty promises and 바카라사이트 expectations raised by 바카라사이트 FSR are bound to be disappointed. But will 바카라사이트y be disappointed enough to cast 바카라사이트ir vote elsewhere? The Conservatives are currently 바카라사이트 most serious challenger to Trudeau, but while 바카라사이트 memories of how 바카라사이트 last government dealt with science may not be insurmountable, 바카라사이트 party¡¯s conspicuous lack of any serious science platform does not inspire confidence.

One thing is clear: 바카라사이트re will be no single science vote. Anyone¡¯s pretence of speaking for ¡°science¡± ignores 바카라사이트 multiple competing and even contradictory interests at play in Canada¡¯s scientific community.

Creso S¨¢ is professor and director of 바카라사이트 Centre for 바카라사이트 Study of Canadian and International Higher Education at 바카라사이트 University of Toronto. A?version of this article was published by 바카라사이트 Canadian Science Policy Centre.?