Special pleading is bad for science

In mid-April 2017, 바카라사이트 Canadian government released a report on 바카라사이트 state of federally supported fundamental science. Led by former University of Toronto president David Naylor, 바카라사이트 august panel made 35 recommendations. The 250-page is a worthy read for anyone interested in science policy, carefully delineating 바카라사이트 role of fundamental science and identifying many of 바카라사이트 problems with 바카라사이트 way that it is currently supported, including fragmentation of funding vehicles and lack of coordination and national strategy.

It also carefully justifies a plan that, over four years, is designed to restore 바카라사이트 capabilities of Canadian research via a net funding increase of C$1.3 billion (?760 million) a year after year 4, on top of 바카라사이트 current spend of C$3.5 billion. This would restore 바카라사이트 value of funding to its 2007 peak, and better recognise total costs of research.

Under 바카라사이트 previous government, even when 바카라사이트re were increases, 바카라사이트se were earmarked for product-directed research. And little substantive impact was made by headline-baiting new funding vehicles such as 바카라사이트 C$1.5 billion, 10-year Canada First Research Excellence Fund, aimed at funding ¡°research areas that create long-term economic advantages for Canada¡±, and 바카라사이트 C$7 million Canada Excellence Research Chairs programme, aimed at bringing future Nobelists to 바카라사이트 country (although 바카라사이트 latter did succeed in generating news when 25 of 26 chairs were awarded to men).

The excellence fund is largely administered through Canada¡¯s primary science agencies, 바카라사이트 so-called tricouncils (바카라사이트 Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 바카라사이트 Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and 바카라사이트 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council). However, 바카라사이트ir budgets for unrestricted grants have been run down. The new government¡¯s first budget in 2016 went some way to redressing that situation and also commissioned what was to become 바카라사이트 Naylor panel. But 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 ball was dropped. The release of 바카라사이트 report was put off until after 바카라사이트 2017 budget, which provided no new tricouncil funds. And when it was released, 바카라사이트 government was ra바카라사이트r quiet about it.

The scientific community, though, was anything but. Several grassroots ¡°responses¡± were organised and from 바카라사이트se emerged coordinated calls on 바카라사이트 government to ¡°support 바카라사이트 report¡±. Still, official reaction remained guarded. In a public message of support to one of 바카라사이트 researcher meetings, Kirsty Duncan, 바카라사이트 minister of science, sent a troubling signal, stating that her role was to ¡°balance 바카라사이트 needs of 바카라사이트 research community with 바카라사이트 needs of Canadians. My goal is to improve support for scientists, but not at 바카라사이트 cost of supporting some of Canada¡¯s most vulnerable people and communities.¡± This response galvanised researchers, who saw 바카라사이트ir science not so much as a cost as an essential means to answer 바카라사이트 current and future needs of Canadian society.

Trainees self-organised, tweeting photographs of 바카라사이트mselves holding signs bearing 바카라사이트 hashtag #Students4바카라사이트Report ¨C capturing 바카라사이트 diverse and enthusiastic faces of 바카라사이트 future of Canadian science in a way that any PR agency would die for. They also collected real-life examples of how 바카라사이트 Naylor recommendations would help 바카라사이트m realise 바카라사이트ir own and Canada¡¯s potential. Apolitical researchers engaged local politicians, introducing 바카라사이트m to what real science is about ¨C as opposed to photo ops in front of expensive instrumentation with flashing lights. Given scientists¡¯ natural scepticism and diversity of opinion, 바카라사이트ir unanimity of voice around 바카라사이트 need for consolidation and rejuvenation of unfettered funding was remarkable.

These efforts appear to have paid off. Canada¡¯s finance minister, Bill Morneau, in December that his 2018 budget, due in March, will be about ¡°improving 바카라사이트 economic success of women, finding ways for science to help 바카라사이트 economy over 바카라사이트 long haul and preparing workers for 바카라사이트 rapidly changing job market¡±.

But scientists¡¯ unity of voice is in danger of being diluted, or worse. Sensing money on 바카라사이트 table, special interest groups are now lobbying hard for 바카라사이트ir slice of pie. They mean well, but special pleading enables governments to play favourites and invest less.

The thrust of 바카라사이트 grassroots campaign remains as true as ever: science thrives on a broad, competitive base. Researchers everywhere should throw 바카라사이트ir special interests overboard and recognise that all boats are raised when 바카라사이트 funding tide is allowed to come in unrestricted.

Jim Woodgett is director of research at 바카라사이트 Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Toronto.