Advertisement 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 NEWSROOM
There have been quite a number of colourful and populist politicians in Ontario's past. So perhaps a Doug Ford win isn't as unlikely as some might think.
February 17, 2018
Family of the late Colten Boushie met with two Liberal ministers after Gerald Stanley was found not guilty of his murder. Was that helpful? Mahoney, Stewart and Parkin debate.
February 13, 2018
We need to stop calling car subsidies "investments" and put the money where it makes the most sense - public transit.
February 07, 2018
From Justin Trudeau to Caroline Mulroney to Christine Elliott, dynasties seem to be dominating politics. A good or bad trend? Mahoney, Stewart and Parkin debate.
February 06, 2018
A recent poll shows Patrick Brown's PCs in a virtual tie with Kathleen Wynne's Liberals for voter support. Are we headed for a minority government?
January 31, 2018
Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown's resignation for alleged sexual impropriety is only the tip of the iceberg. Will Bill C-65 solve the problem? Alvaro, Stewart and Parkin discuss.
January 30, 2018
Does Justin Trudeau's attendance in Davos for the World Economic Forum really benefit Canada? Mahoney, Stewart and Parkin weigh in.
January 23, 2018
The latest Forum poll shows little change, but trends over the last 18 months say a lot. They may mean a big opening for the Andrea Howath.
January 17, 2018
A new poll says only 37% of Canadians approve of the job the Trudeau Liberals are doing. We asked Richard Mahoney, Will Stewart and Tom Parkin what the numbers really mean.
January 16, 2018
As the Tim Horton's brand takes a national pounding after a franchise counters the minimum wage hike by taking away benefits, labour may become an election issue.
January 15, 2018
Will CPC Leader Scheer's move to kick Beyak out of the CPC caucus hurt him with some supporters? Mahoney, Stewart and Parkin weigh in.
January 09, 2018
Voter participation has been declining in the 21st century. Are Ontario voters interested enough in the upcoming election to vote?
January 07, 2018