Luckily we have science geeks and laboratory denizens who understand what is actually happening. The Gazeteer is one of them and has provided his post to us:
Why Does Stephen Harper Hate Canadian Science So Much?
TheLadderOfScience
KnowsATopAndABottomVille
In case you were wondering, there is a very tall ladder in science.
What the heckfire am I talking about?
I'm talking about the ladder of science journals - those 'magazines' that publish peer reviewed research.
Now, you hear a lot about how important the 'peer' review is to the advancement of science.
And it is, because peer review is the process by which other scientists vet a fellow science-geek's work before it gets published in such a journal.
However, like anything else, there is sloppy peer review and there is truly rigourous peer review.
And the journal with one of the most rigourous peer review processes of them all is the journal Nature.
As such, Nature consistently prints papers that are of such a high quality that they are the ones that are most often cited by other science geeks when they write follow-up papers.
And it is this follow-up 'impact factor' , which is kind of like the scientific equivalent of the Nielsen ratings, that is one of the critical measures that helps put Nature at the top of the science journal ladder.
And the top of that ladder just whacked Stephen Harper up the side of the head in an editorial published in today's issue.
One of the issues that Nature has taken Mr. Harper to task over, which is the thing that is getting all the pro-media play today, is his disregard for climate change science:
"Since prime minister Stephen Harper came to power, his government has been sceptical of the science on climate change and has backed away from Canada's Kyoto commitment. In January, it muzzled Environment Canada's scientists, ordering them to route all media enquires through Ottawa to control the agency's media message. Last week, the prime minister and members of the cabinet failed to attend a ceremony to honour the Canadian scientists who contributed to the international climate-change report that won a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize."
And I agree that is a very bad thing, indeed.
But the thing that makes rank and file science geeks even more worried is the following passage from Nature's editorial:
"There are deeper and more chronic problems for Canadian science. On the surface, funding for university-based research seems strong. The annual budgets for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council tripled and doubled, respectively, between 2000 and 2005. The government has also supported new science projects through government-created corporations such as Genome Canada and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and has recruited and retained promising young scientists through the Canada Research Chairs programme.
But Genome Canada funds only half of the cost of a research project — scientists must seek the remaining cash from elsewhere. Last year, the CIHR was able to fund only 16% of the applications it received, and cut the budgets of successful applicants by a quarter, on average."
Why is this passage so worrying?
Well, because the first paragraph of good news and good programs all happened before Mr. Harper came to power. As for the second paragraph, well this has happened since, and, essentially, it illustrates Mr. Harper's Reservoir Dogs approach to trashing independent scientific enquiry in Canada. Specifically, the CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) funds the true R&D of biomedical research in this country through a very rigorous peer review process of it's own. When Paul Martin left office the funding rates for this vital science engine, which does not easily lend itself to hype heap-assisted photo-ops, were approaching a very healthy 30%. Now, at Mr. Harper's 16%, the true innovation spigot has pretty much been shut off - especially when you consider that even the 16% that were successful also had their budgets cut considerably.
So, while I, myself a proud Canadian science geek, am quite happy to see that the top of the ladder just whacked our current prime minister on the head, I am also very concerned that if he remains in power much longer Mr. Harper will continue to do his best to throw Canadian Science off the ladder completely.
OK?
________
As a public service (in case anybody can't get deep into Nature) we are publishing the entire editorial, in full, below:
_______
Nature 451, 866 (21 February 2008) | doi:10.1038/451866a; Published online 20 February 2008
Science in retreat
Comparisons of nations' scientific outputs over the years have shown that Canada's researchers have plenty to be proud of, consistently maintaining their country's position among the world's top ten (see, for example, Nature 430, 311–316; 2004). Alas, their government's track record is dismal by comparison.
When the Canadian government announced earlier this year that it was closing the office of the national science adviser, few in the country's science community were surprised. Science has long faced an uphill battle for recognition in Canada, but the slope became steeper when the Conservative government was elected in 2006.
The decision in 2004 by the then prime minister Paul Martin to appoint a scientist for independent, non-partisan advice on science and technology was a good one — in principle. Arthur Carty, the chemist who secured the position, duly relinquished his post as president of the National Research Council Canada, which he had revitalized.
But his new office was destined to fail. The budget was abysmal and the mandate was vague at best. After winning power from the Liberals, the Conservatives moved Carty's office away from the prime minister's offices to Industry Canada. In 2007, the government formed the 18-member Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC). Told that the government would no longer need a science adviser, Carty offered his resignation. From March, the STIC will provide policy advice and report on Canada's science and technology performance. It can be expected to be markedly less independent: although it is stocked with first-class scientists and entrepreneurs, several government administrators also hold seats.
Concerns can only be enhanced by the government's manifest disregard for science. Since prime minister Stephen Harper came to power, his government has been sceptical of the science on climate change and has backed away from Canada's Kyoto commitment. In January, it muzzled Environment Canada's scientists, ordering them to route all media enquires through Ottawa to control the agency's media message. Last week, the prime minister and members of the cabinet failed to attend a ceremony to honour the Canadian scientists who contributed to the international climate-change report that won a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Harper sees himself as the leader of a 'global energy powerhouse' and is committing Canada to a fossil-fuel economy. More than 40 companies have a stake in mining and upgrading the bitumen from the oil sands in Alberta and churning out 1.2 million barrels a day. This activity generates three times as much greenhouse gas as conventional oil drilling. Emissions from Canada's oil and gas industry have risen by 42% since 1990.
There are deeper and more chronic problems for Canadian science. On the surface, funding for university-based research seems strong. The annual budgets for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council tripled and doubled, respectively, between 2000 and 2005. The government has also supported new science projects through government-created corporations such as Genome Canada and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and has recruited and retained promising young scientists through the Canada Research Chairs programme.
But Genome Canada funds only half of the cost of a research project — scientists must seek the remaining cash from elsewhere. Last year, the CIHR was able to fund only 16% of the applications it received, and cut the budgets of successful applicants by a quarter, on average. And earlier this month, the country's top scientists and university officials warned that they were short of funds to operate multimillion-dollar big-science projects such as the Canadian Light Source synchrotron.
What's to be done? Canada has made good investments in its science infrastructure and its future research leaders. The present government might be dissolved after a vote of confidence next month, which could in itself lead to a change for the better. But in any circumstances, Canada's leading scientists can be public advocates, pointing to the examples of other countries in urging the government of the day to boost their country into a position of leadership rather than reluctant follower.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment