Advertisement
Advertisement
ontarionewswatch.com NEWSROOM

                    Funding High Arctic Research Is Important,

                   But $1.6 million Is An Insultingly Paltry Sum

 

By Terri Chu

The federal government recently announced, to great fanfare, that it provided $1.6 million to the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL). It is enough to keep high Arctic research running through 2019.

It seems like such a paltry amount considering we spent half a billion dollars to throw ourselves a Canada 150 party. Really? $1.6 million is worthy of pats on the back? Let alone the endless self-congratulatory tweets from Liberal Members of Parliament.  For a government that just appointed an engineer and astronaut as Governor General, this feels like a slap in the face for science. 

If we want scientific research excellence, researchers need to know they can conduct long-term research, free from political interference, and not have to go groveling for money in another year and a half.

This is not being an ally to science; it’s throwing science a bone in hopes of getting re-elected in 2019.  True friends of science would have put in place a long term funding plan so these scientists know they can conduct 10-year experiments and spend more time doing research than writing funding proposals.  Researchers spend far too much time asking for money and not enough time trawling through data that will benefit all of us in the long run.

I appreciate the need for accountability, but forcing inefficiencies isn’t the best way to deal with the problem. Taxpayers demand value for money, but we need to have a longer-term view, not just of election cycles.  If we want high impact research, we have to accept that duds will come with it. It’s part of risk taking. We praise CEOs for taking gambles that sometimes payoff tenfold, yet we aren’t willing to take the same risks by our research institutions. 

What surprised me when talking to a relative was how little public appreciation there is for government funded research. The “this doesn’t affect me” attitude is more pervasive than I thought. 

Publicly funded research helps inform everything from tap water standards to air quality targets. High Arctic research might be the only thing saving lives in the Arctic region as climate change takes its toll. Good research absolutely affects us even if we don’t see it from our comfy kitchen tables in the city. 

Scientists for their part must make their work more accessible to the average layman. Sounding impressive in jargon-speak has taken precedence over the ability to write papers in plain English. As a result, there’s a bigger and bigger gulf between academics and those who should be consuming the fruits of their labour. It also doesn’t help that papers are often difficult and expensive to access.  Research that is publicly funded should also be freely available to everyone. 

When people can’t see the point of the work being done, no wonder there’s more money going towards throwing ourselves a giant birthday party than funding invaluable research. 

Thank goodness the Stephen Harper era gag orders on federal researchers have been lifted, but we still have a long way to go.  We know climate change is real. We know we’re in a lot of trouble. Now we need to understand how to mitigate as much harm to ourselves as we can. This is particularly true for those who live in Northern regions of the country.

$1.6 million is an insultingly paltry sum. Let’s not give our government kudos for cutting back on a few steak dinners to fund scientific research that might save our skins.  Instead, we need to demand that scientists get steady and stable funding for the work that we all ultimately benefit from. 

Science isn’t political. Our government needs to make sure its funding isn’t either.

 

Terri Chu is an expert in energy systems, with a Masters in Engineering specializing in urban energy systems. Terri founded the grassroots organization "Why Should I Care", a not for profit dedicated to engaging people on issues of public policy.

 

Posted date : November 19, 2017
ontarionewswatch.com NEWSROOM
The Liberals won three of four by-elections this week, including a seat in an area they haven't taken since 1949. What do the results mean? Mahoney, Stewart and Parkin debate.
December 12, 2017
Is the centre-left getting crowded? The PC's, Liberals and NDP all seem to be targeting voters there. Which will win them?
December 11, 2017
Canada is redoubling diplomatic efforts to avoid the threat of nuclear weapons hitting Canada and the U.S. Mahoney, Stewart and Parkin on what can be done.
December 05, 2017
What happens when water pollution becomes "nobody's problem?" Ontario has it's own sorry history of water poisoning, and its ecological sins now reach international waters.
December 03, 2017
Postmedia and Torstar are cutting nearly 300 jobs and closing more than 30 newspapers - most in Ontario. Can the government step in? Mahoney, Stewart and Parkin debate.
November 29, 2017
Immigrants in Ontario are much less likely to live in small towns than in big cities. That may make for targeted election policies in 2018.
November 26, 2017
There's plenty of it going on in Canadian politics, not just the U.S. We asked Mahoney, Stewart and Parkin how politicians need to conduct themselves - and avoid ending their careers.
November 22, 2017
Funding needs to be higher and long term to mitigate damages from climate change. It shouldn't just be about getting the Liberals re-elected.
November 19, 2017
The renegotiation of NAFTA resumes this week in Mexico City. What does Canada have to do to save NAFTA - or should it bother? Mahoney, Stewart and Parkin weigh in.
November 14, 2017
A recent series of lectures in Toronto might help Prime Minister Trudeau's search for an path towards reconciliation with Canada's First Nations.
November 12, 2017
Justin Trudeau's fundraiser and former Liberal PMs Jean Chretien and Paul Martin are linked to companies with holdings in offshore tax havens. Mahoney, Stewart and Parkin debate.
November 08, 2017
While populists in some countries say immigration and freer trade have caused inequality inside nations, globally it's a different story. More migration helps.
November 06, 2017