PDF

oct09-editorial.pdf

Let’s face it! Historically, scientists have not been presented in wholly flattering images to the public at large. Either they were portrayed as “mad egotistical geniuses”, obsessed with making an impact, even if it meant acting totally immorally, such as Dr. Strangelove and Dr. No, intent on destroying the world. Or they were portrayed as benign eccentrics working on absurd projects, such as in “Honey, I shrunk the kids”, where a Dr. Szalinski tries to develop a miniaturizing machine, which inevitably leads to havoc when it unexpectedly begins functioning. In less extreme cases, such as in the current sitcom The Big Bang Theory^[1], we are lovingly represented as disconnected from reality, or unrealistic, with the old “absent-mindedness” replaced by adjectives such as “nutty”, nerdy, or geeky, and therefore not to be trusted, and in need of close supervision. It is not uncommon to read that “men and women of science often seem to spend the bulk of their time dreaming up novel ways to sink vast sums of money into projects with limited utility for humanity”^[2] with the occasional marvellous discovery.

On the other hand, in the press, technological advances, natural wonders, and progress in health care are commonly reported. Few would contest that without science we would still be living in the dark ages. A major step was achieved in Canada when the federal government embraced the link between innovation and prosperity at the end of the last century, which led to the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and the Canada Research Chair program, an influx of capital that had not been seen since the postwar years. The funds were most welcome, but, as in more recent initiatives, such as the NSERC training grant CREATE, and the Canada Excellence Research Chair program (CERC), the funds are not coming exactly in the form that scientists would have wished. The main funding agencies received only small increases, perpetuating a chronic underfunding in the operational budgets of our research programs.

A major cultural divide exists between politicians and scientists, leading to a degree of mistrust. Politicians have varied educational backgrounds, and scientific literacy is typically minimal. Politicians want quick tangible and even spectacular results, and would like research to be connected to a useful application. Scientists, on the other hand, believe in following their instincts or curiosity towards the most exciting subjects, with usually unpredictable results. But even scientists recognize the need to acknowledge societal needs. During the Second World War, for instance, weapons of mass destruction, radar, and secret codes were prime preoccupations. Now, global environmental issues, unravelling the mysteries of life, and manipulating it, playing God with materials, and green chemistry, are just a few examples of research focus. Communication between scientists and politicians is challenging but the effort has its rewards and is essential to both sides of the divide. The CAP has been working hard at bridging the gap. Our new Science Policy Corner^[3] will chronicle the progress. In this issue, there is an excellent report by Robert Mann and Henry van Driel on a recent Canadian Science Policy Conference which took place on October 28-30, 2009 in Toronto, and managed to gather an impressive list of participants from academia, business, government, media, and the non-profit sector, including several members of the CAP^[4]. What needs to be done, and the nature of the issues, are better and better understood, but it is hard not be concerned about the outcome, because of the different perceptions of immediate priorities. The main concern of the government is economic, and therefore concentrates on innovation and technology transfer. To improve Canada’s innovation record, our government may want to lean more heavily on scientists to deliver the technological advances, without the necessary increases in research operating budgets. Signs point to more government interference in the funding criteria. When funding is provided, it is not necessarily in the most effective form to advance the science and technology agenda in the country. Abalancing of priorities is required, and, as in all spheres of society and politics, a healthy equilibrium has to be achieved, here between curiositydriven research and research of “clear economic value”. In an ideal system, the latter would be financed by private funding. In Canada, however, since profits are still good without those investments, industrial commitments to research remain modest in most sectors, in spite of favourable tax incentives (the high-tech sector may be an exception).

There should be a discussion about the role of research of no obvious economic value, a significant part of which we traditionally call fundamental research. The British Higher Education Council for England has carried out such a discussion and decided in its Research Excellence Framework to eliminate by 2012 all “pointless” research, i.e. research which has no “usefulness” in the real world. As one can imagine, this is creating a lot of debate. David Mitchell, a British humorist, writes in the Guardian: “what separates us from the beasts, apart from fire, laughter, depression and guilt about killing the odd beast, is our curiosity. We've advanced as a species because we've wanted to find things out, regardless of whether we thought it useful. We looked at the sky and wondered what was going on… If academic endeavour had always been vetted in advance for practicality, we wouldn't have the aeroplane or the iPhone, just a better mammoth trap.”^[5]

Let us hope that our Research Councils will not follow suit, and that the British Higher Education Council will see the light soon, and look at the skies again.

Béla Joòs, P.Phys.
Editor, Physics in Canada
 

REFERENCES

1. The Big Bang Theory, an American sitcom featuring two physicists, one theoretical and the other experimental, and neighbours, colleagues and friends which premiered on CBS in 2007 with many clips available on You Tube.
2. Greg Beato, “Politically correct political incorrectness”, Globe and Mail, Monday, November 9th, 2009, p. A12.
3. Science Policy Corner, Physics in Canada, this issue, p. 222.
4. Robert Mann and Henry van Driel, “Report on the Canadian Science Policy Conference”, Physics in Canada, this issue, p. 225.
5. David Mitchell, The Observer, Sunday, September 27th, 2009. Weblink at http://www.guardian.co.uk/

We welcome comments on this editorial.