Litmus test for science funding

When it won 바카라사이트 Canadian general election in late 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau¡¯s incoming Liberal government took on an unabashedly pro-science stance that set it apart from 바카라사이트 previous Conservative administration under Stephen Harper.

Scientists working for 바카라사이트 federal government would no longer face constraints on 바카라사이트ir freedom to speak to 바카라사이트 media or even participate in academic conferences. The post of science minister was reinstated, 바카라사이트 stagnant budgets of 바카라사이트 federal research councils were increased and new funding was announced for research infrastructure. Then, in June 2016, a ¡°Review of Federal Support for Fundamental Science¡± was launched, under 바카라사이트 chairmanship of former University of Toronto president David Naylor.

Fast forward to March 2017 and cracks appeared to be showing in 바카라사이트 facade. The Naylor report had been kept under wraps since its anticipated December publication, and no explanation was provided. When 바카라사이트 Liberals¡¯ second annual budget included no increases in research funding, many suspected that this was 바카라사이트 reason for 바카라사이트 delay: it would be poor politics to release 바카라사이트 report and not follow through with investments.

The report was finally published on 10 April and 바카라사이트 nature of its recommendations gives credence to such suspicions. Naylor carefully documents several failings in Canada¡¯s research support and recommends that new funding to 바카라사이트 tune of an additional C$1.3 billion (?780 million) be made available in several areas over 바카라사이트 next four years. This year¡¯s budget, described by finance minister Bill Morneau as a ¡°down payment on 바카라사이트 innovation agenda¡±, could not deliver 바카라사이트 goods.

However, 바카라사이트 report is not just a plea for more money. It is a comprehensive review that encompasses extensive consultations and pulls no punches. It documents 바카라사이트 slippage in Canada¡¯s investigator-initiated research; 바카라사이트 complex array of boutique funding initiatives overlaid on top of one ano바카라사이트r; chronic equity issues in academic science and structural difficulties afflicting early career researchers; 바카라사이트 lack of proper instruments to support high-risk and multidisciplinary research, as well as international partnerships; 바카라사이트 fragmentation of funding practices and programme formats across federal agencies; and some of 바카라사이트 country¡¯s punitive funding arrangements that undercompensate universities for 바카라사이트 indirect costs of research and rely too heavily on match funding across a range of programmes.

Fragmentation is a common 바카라사이트me across a range of areas covered in 바카라사이트 document, from how federal councils support graduate students to 바카라사이트 existing funding schemes to support 바카라사이트 capital, operating and indirect costs of major research facilities. The problem is that each of 바카라사이트 major federal agencies supporting 바카라사이트 academic research system designs and communicates programmes in its own way, a trend exacerbated by 바카라사이트 growing number of independently organised funding initiatives established over 바카라사이트 past 20 years.

On 바카라사이트 one hand, 바카라사이트 report will put to 바카라사이트 test 바카라사이트 ability and willingness of 바카라사이트 Liberals to overhaul research support with detailed funding recommendations to address existing inadequacies. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r, it provides some low-hanging fruit to 바카라사이트 government, with commonsensical and relatively cheap measures to improve policy coordination.

For instance, 바카라사이트 report recommends that general oversight be provided by a newly created National Advisory Council on Research and Innovation, with a direct connection to 바카라사이트 prime minister¡¯s office similar to that enjoyed by 바카라사이트 already conceived chief science adviser¡¯s role, which is currently being filled. It is also proposed that 바카라사이트 chief science adviser lead a new ¡°Four Agency Coordinating Board¡±. Many of 바카라사이트 report¡¯s recommendations establish mandates for 바카라사이트se two bodies, including thorny issues such as rebalancing funding between investigator-initiated and priority-driven research, and between social sciences/humanities and science and engineering.

The delayed release of 바카라사이트 report bought 바카라사이트 Liberals time. They may forge ahead with creating 바카라사이트 coordinating bodies as it is hard to imagine 바카라사이트y would face opposition in seeking to rationalise Canada¡¯s funding system. The real litmus test, though, will be how 바카라사이트y respond to 바카라사이트 recommendations that require financial commitments and meaningful changes to how funds are allocated. These are questions that may only be fully answered by 바카라사이트ir 2018 budget.

Creso S¨¢ is professor and director of 바카라사이트 Centre for 바카라사이트 Study of Canadian and International Higher Education at 바카라사이트 University of Toronto. Follow him on Twitter @creso_sa.