Investment needed in basic science
After a decade of Stephen Harper’s war on science, Justin Trudeau came to power promising a better way. On a number of fronts, he has delivered. But on others, his government’s slowness to act casts doubt on its commitment to doing the difficult work necessary to restore Canadian science to its former glory. And recent comments by his science minister don’t give much comfort.
No doubt Trudeau has been a significant improvement over his predecessor. Upon taking office, he moved quickly to unmuzzle government researchers who had been barred from talking about their work under the Tories. He restored the long-form census, our richest source of demographic information and a key tool for evidence-based policymaking, which Harper had egregiously scrapped. And he pledged $95 million in his government’s first budget to the country’s main research-granting bodies.
These were crucial, but relatively easy steps – the lowhanging fruit in rebuilding Canada’s tarnished science culture.
To address the more systemic issues, his government commissioned an independent federal panel, led by former University of Toronto president David Naylor, to take stock of the damage and propose fixes.
The panel painted a bleak picture. Federal investment has been in steady decline for a decade. In particular, the funding available for independent, basic science – the sort of funding, that is, that’s likely to attract the top talent we need to compete in the knowledge economy – has shrunk by about 35 per cent per researcher. Over the same period, our performance in terms of scientific awards, publications and citations stalled relative to our peers.
The panel’s recommendations provided Ottawa with a sensible roadmap. Key among them: a $485-million increase for basic research, the sort of science that so often produces the serendipitous discoveries that lead to future innovation. As the panel argued, amid U.S. and British retrenchment on science, an opportunity has emerged for Canada to reassert its leadership role on research, with all of the economic and social potential that entails.
Given this window, it was disappointing to see Science Minister Kirsty Duncan’s tepid comments last week on the future of research funding. “We’ve got to be realistic,” she warned when asked about the Naylor report. “There’s no quick fix. It’s been 10 years of cuts and it’s going to take time to make up lost ground.”
Clearly it’s true that the damage can’t be undone overnight. But it’s also true that after the government’s initial infusion of research funding, it has done very little. In the most recent federal budget, there was no new money. Nor did Duncan commit to a timeline for boosting investment. There may be no quick fix, but there is urgency – and even the long fix has to start somewhere.
As the government grapples with how to forge a 21stcentury science policy, it was supposed to have the help of a national science adviser. The creation of this position, a Liberal campaign promise, was meant to ensure that government acts according to the best scientific evidence. But here, too, Trudeau has been slow to act. A year and a half into its mandate, the government still hasn’t appointed anyone to the role. Asked about this, Duncan would say only that she would find someone “soon.”
The Trudeau government has made much of its commitment to science. But in the wake of the great unmuzzling, we have seen too many disclaimers and evasions. A science adviser, if the government had one, would surely urge it to hurry up and act.