Canada Sells Out Science

OrbitalDawn

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
47,644
Reaction score
9,314
Location
Aboard the Nostalgia For Infinity
Over the past few years, the Canadian government has been lurching into antiscience territory. For example, they’ve been muzzling scientists, essentially censoring them from talking about their research. Scientists have fought back against this, though from what I hear with limited success.

But a new development makes the situation appear to be far worse. In a stunning announcement, the National Research Council—the Canadian scientific research and development agency—has now said that they will only perform research that has “social or economic gain”.

This is not a joke. I wish it were.

John MacDougal, President of the NRC, literally said, “Scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value”. Gary Goodyear, the Canadian Minister of State for Science and Technology, also stated “There is [sic] only two reasons why we do science and technology. First is to create knowledge ... second is to use that knowledge for social and economic benefit. Unfortunately, all too often the knowledge gained is opportunity lost.”

I had to read the article two or three times to make sure I wasn’t missing something, because I was thinking that no one could possibly utter such colossally ignorant statements. But no, I was reading it correctly. These two men—leaders in the Canadian scientific research community—were saying, out loud and clearly, that the only science worth doing is what lines the pocket of business.

This is monumentally backwards thinking. That is not the reason we do science. Economic benefits are results of doing research, but should not be the reason we do it. Basic scientific research is a vast endeavor, and some of it will pay off economically, and some won’t. In almost every case, you cannot know in advance which will do which.

In the 19th century, for example, James Clerk Maxwell was just interested in understanding electricity and magnetism. He didn’t do it for monetary benefit, to support a business, or to maximize a profit. Yet his research led to the foundation of our entire economy today. Computers, the Internet, communication, satellites, everything you plug in or that uses a battery, stem from the work he did simply because of his own curiosity. I strongly suspect that if he were to apply to the NRC for funding under this new regime, he’d be turned down flat. The kind of work Maxwell did then is very difficult to do without support these days, and we need governments to provide that help.

In his statement above, Goodyear did throw in a mention of “social benefit”, and I’ll agree that does motivate many scientists—making life better for people is a strong incentive—but again, you cannot always know what research will do that and what won’t.

And that’s OK, because it’s not like the money is wasted when invested in science. For one thing, the amount of money we’re talking about here is tiny, tiny, compared to a national budget. For another, investment in science always pays off. Always, and at a very high rate. If you want to boost your economy in the middle and long run, one of the best ways to do it is invest in science. Instead of slicing away the scope of what scientists can do to save pennies and focus on narrower goals, the government should be increasing their budget and widening their vision.

But the Canadian government is doing the precise opposite. If proposed and immediate economic benefits are the prime factors in choosing what science to fund, then the freedom of this human endeavor will be critically curtailed. It’s draining the passion and heart out of one of the best things we humans do.

By doing this, the Canadian government and the NRC have literally sold out science.
Click to expand...

Link.

:(
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Link.

:(
Click to expand...

If scientists want public funding, they need to deliver to the public. Otherwise it will be research which is beneficial to some or other purpose, especially commercial purposes and applications.

It's the same with pharma companies. Someone invests money into making life saving drugs then idiots who never invested a cent rock up and demand equal share of the technology/knowledge. Well it's pretty easy -- found your own research institution and raise your own money. The world isn't going to run away.

Canada also can't sell out science. Science is short for scientific inquiry. You can't sell it out. It's a method of investigation.
 
Space_Chief said:
If scientists want public funding, they need to deliver to the public. Otherwise it will be research which is beneficial to some or other purpose, especially commercial purposes and applications.
Click to expand...

How did you miss the part where he addresses this in the article? The very nature of research entails not necessarily knowing beforehand what will 'deliver' and what won't.

To add to his example of James Clerk Maxwell. The harm caused by Chlorofluorocarbons to the ozone layer was discovered by two relatively lowly scientists who wanted to understand the atmosphere of Venus. Do you think it's not beneficial to society to know about this? They had no idea what they'd find beforehand, yet made one of the most important discoveries in the last decade.

Space_Chief said:
Canada also can't sell out science. Science is short for scientific inquiry. You can't sell it out. It's a method of investigation.
Click to expand...

You know perfectly well what he means by it.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
How did you miss the part where he addresses this in the article? The very nature of research entails not necessarily knowing beforehand what will 'deliver' and what won't.

To add to his example of James Clerk Maxwell. The harm caused by Chlorofluorocarbons to the ozone layer was discovered by two relatively lowly scientists who wanted to understand the atmosphere of Venus. Do you think it's not beneficial to society to know about this? They had no idea what they'd find beforehand, yet made one of the most important discoveries in the last decade.
Click to expand...

Newsflash: If you feel strongly about that, pay for the research yourself. People are happy to spend loads of money on cars, soccer related stuff, entertainment, personal pride etc. Spend instead on that. Do an orphan drug like fund.

Do you do science yourself?
If you do, maybe join a not for profit organisation and take a pay cut. At the end of the day economics rules everything else.

You know perfectly well what he means by it.
Click to expand...

No I don't. Science is just a technical term. You can't sell it out. If you do empirical investigation in any field you do science.

And another newsflash: most post-docs, PhDs and Masters students do things which are bound to earn them good papers. Not what they think is going to work or has promise. The two do not correlate.

Sounds to me like some people are butthurt because their funding is going to get cut. Better find sponsors or write research grant applications. If your work is BS people won't want to sponsor it. The world is in an economic meltdown.
 
Last edited:
Space_Chief said:
Newsflash: If you feel strongly about that, pay for the research yourself. People are happy to spend loads of money on cars, soccer related stuff, entertainment, personal pride etc. Spend instead on that. Do an orphan drug like fund.
Click to expand...

Sure hope you never find issue with anything, 'cos you know, you should just be quiet and do it yourself.

Space_Chief said:
No I don't. Science is just a technical term. You can't sell it out. If you do empirical investigation in any field you do science.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do. You are not a moron. Your obtuse pretense notwithstanding. He very obviously means the Canadian government is selling out the spirit of scientific inquiry, and you know this. Stop pretending you don't.

Space_Chief said:
And another newsflash: most post-docs, PhDs and Masters students do things which are bound to earn them good papers. Not what they think is going to work or has promise. The two do not correlate.

Sounds to me like some people are butthurt because their funding is going to get cut. Better find sponsors or write research grant applications. If your work is BS people won't want to sponsor it. The world is in an economic meltdown.
Click to expand...

Well done on missing the point. It's not always possible to know whether research will be a dead end or have social/economic benefits. Assuming something won't from the get-go and therefore denying funding can very easily cut off real avenues of progress, especially if you have clearly defined immediate economic benefit as the goal. Naturally you can apply reason and not spend an inordinate amount of money on researching a way to give hamsters wings, but look at the example I mentioned and tell me that hasn't been beneficial.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Sure hope you never find issue with anything, 'cos you know, you should just be quiet and do it yourself.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Research projects have to be audited and co-ordinated. And if they don't deliver they get cut. This has been happening for ages. Most work is sponsored and in lean times sponsors have a right to know where the money is going. In addition in the modern age of social responsibility scientists can't be above the responsibility we all now have to other people, the planet, etc. Don't ask for special exemptions.


Yes, you do. You are not a moron. Your obtuse pretense notwithstanding. He very obviously means the Canadian government is selling out the spirit of scientific inquiry, and you know this. Stop pretending you don't.
Click to expand...

Spirit of scientific inquiry? Bollocks. What's that? If you mean the naive, romantic view of guys doing things out of curiosity that is mostly gone. But you can get that back by instead of doing science festishism, but by actually doing science for low pay. Sacrifice like the early pioneers or those who are dedicated not the millions of docs/post docs who just waste air and money with BS. Go on do it, armchair warrior. Or sell your own house and pay for some guys to write PhDs. Go on do it! Sell your house and give all your money for that. Maybe you'll get a Nobel prize one day, but even if you don't, you did it for "science".


Well done on missing the point. It's not always possible to know whether research will be a dead end or have social/economic benefits. Assuming something won't from the get-go and therefore denying funding can very easily cut off real avenues of progress, especially if you have clearly defined immediate economic benefit as the goal. Naturally you can apply reason and not spend an inordinate amount of money on researching a way to give hamsters wings, but look at the example I mentioned and tell me that hasn't been beneficial.
Click to expand...

It's you who missed the point. Doing papers which write well for personal reasons is not leading there either. I heard you the first time and that naive view of scientific research you have is not what's practiced in the real world.

Go do some real science.
 
The world has changed, countries used to living with luxuries are realising that the good times cannot last for ever. They have to compete for business with a lot more countries than they did before,so everyone is getting a smaller slice of the pie.

Welfare states that are more affected than many others, like the Western European ones and Canada are either in denial (e.g France) or getting bankrupt (Mediteranian countries).

Healthcare? Social services? Scientific Research? Transportation? Education? Policing? etc....

All countries are having to cut expenses nowadays. Different countries pick different things to cut depending on what their politicians think will be most acceptable. Canada is cutting a few things, including Scientific research. Am not saying they are right, but i would prefer better hospitals and better policing with a good public transport system than Scientific project that may go nowhere
 
Space_Chief said:
Nonsense. Research projects have to be audited and co-ordinated. And if they don't deliver they get cut. This has been happening for ages. Most work is sponsored and in lean times sponsors have a right to know where the money is going. In addition in the modern age of social responsibility scientists can't be above the responsibility we all now have to other people, the planet, etc. Don't ask for special exemptions.
Click to expand...

Err, no one did? And I haven't said anything that disagrees with what you're saying here, so I dunno what you're waffling about.

Space_Chief said:
Spirit of scientific inquiry? Bollocks. What's that? If you mean the naive, romantic view of guys doing things out of curiosity that is mostly gone. But you can get that back by instead of doing science festishism, but by actually doing science for low pay. Sacrifice like the early pioneers or those who are dedicated not the millions of docs/post docs who just waste air and money with BS. Go on do it, armchair warrior. Or sell your own house and pay for some guys to write PhDs. Go on do it! Sell your house and give all your money for that. Maybe you'll get a Nobel prize one day, but even if you don't, you did it for "science".
Click to expand...

The fsck are you going on about? Did a science-nerd beat you at chess or something?

Space_Chief said:
It's you who missed the point. Doing papers which write well for personal reasons is not leading there either. I heard you the first time and that naive view of scientific research you have is not what's practiced in the real world.

Go do some real science.
Click to expand...

I'll let the Perimeter Institute know they should stop trying to "advance our understanding of the universe at the most fundamental level, stimulating the breakthroughs that could transform our future. Perimeter also trains the next generation of physicists through innovative programs, and shares the excitement and wonder of science with students, teachers and the general public." Mkay?

Also make sure to let the Max Planck Society know that they're doing "real science" wrong.
 
imranpanji said:
The world has changed, countries used to living with luxuries are realising that the good times cannot last for ever. They have to compete for business with a lot more countries than they did before,so everyone is getting a smaller slice of the pie.
Click to expand...

What's more is that NO-ONE is making it illegal to fund science. People who feel strongly about this should provide the funding themselves. And if they can't they can create foundations for raising money for given projects. And it's also not like blind research is so successful anyway.

Most people write stuff which will get them a quick paper. That's the reality of it. They also fudge data. In most cases it's not even seen as fraud as certain amount of cherry picking is permissible. Then much of research now is driven by activism. It has to be the right research. In medicine orphan drug funds are created to help fund research in treatments which will benefit few people or rare diseases. Stuff like that is possible.

Blind, vague research driven by whims and feelings of scientists. That's not been on in most places for ages.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Err, no one did? And I haven't said anything that disagrees with what you're saying here, so I dunno what you're waffling about.
Click to expand...

You "dunno" that's very true.

The fsck are you going on about? Did a science-nerd beat you at chess or something?
Click to expand...

Seems this is devolving into personal insults. Look you're a science fetishist. Go do some science. Get a BSc and do some actual work. Don't write about wonders of scientific inquiry, DO actual scientific inquiry.


I'll let the Perimeter Institute know they should stop trying to "advance our understanding of the universe at the most fundamental level, stimulating the breakthroughs that could transform our future. Perimeter also trains the next generation of physicists through innovative programs, and shares the excitement and wonder of science with students, teachers and the general public." Mkay?
Click to expand...

If they don't deliver their funding will get cut, depending on their sponsors. It's life. And most of these people, who are mature, know it. These days scientists have to sell their work to sponsors. It's been like that for many years. And even then the individuals often just work on things they think hold promise for them. Now there is just a step up higher, at the level where money goes into the system. In fact a better co-ordinated system can probably deliver more. After all that's also the idea behind scientific publication and sharing of published papers.

Also make sure to let the Max Planck Society know that they're doing "real science" wrong.
Click to expand...

Wow you super Wikipedia guy you. Find some more research institutions.

And who said I said they did real science wrong anyway?

Gosh you have reading comprehension problems.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure glad Canada has never really contributed anything worthwhile to science and civilisation in general, so it's not really a big loss.

I just wish they'd stop inflicting terrible music on the world though.
 
imranpanji said:
The world has changed, countries used to living with luxuries are realising that the good times cannot last for ever. They have to compete for business with a lot more countries than they did before,so everyone is getting a smaller slice of the pie.

Welfare states that are more affected than many others, like the Western European ones and Canada are either in denial (e.g France) or getting bankrupt (Mediteranian countries).

Healthcare? Social services? Scientific Research? Transportation? Education? Policing? etc....

All countries are having to cut expenses nowadays. Different countries pick different things to cut depending on what their politicians think will be most acceptable. Canada is cutting a few things, including Scientific research. Am not saying they are right, but i would prefer better hospitals and better policing with a good public transport system than Scientific project that may go nowhere
Click to expand...

The NRC is getting 0.02% of Canada's budget. Excuse me for not taking the 'budget cuts' argument too seriously.
 
Space_Chief said:
You "dunno" that's very true.
Click to expand...

As opposed to you who's a genius on every topic imaginable, apparently. Every thread you involve yourself in you speak matter-of-factly, never to be corrected.

Space_Chief said:
Seems this is devolving into personal insults. Look you're a science fetishist. Go do some science. Get a BSc and do some actual work. Don't write about wonders of scientific inquiry, DO actual scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...

And what then? Will I all of a sudden agree with their stance? All the scientists I know are dismayed by this, including at least one theoretical physicist at UCLA.

Space_Chief said:
If they don't deliver their funding will get cut, depending on their sponsors. It's life. And most of these people, who are mature, know it. These days scientists have to sell their work to sponsors. It's been like that for many years. And even then the individuals often just work on things they think hold promise for them. Now there is just a step up higher, at the level where money goes into the system. In fact a better co-ordinated system can probably deliver more. After all that's also the idea behind scientific publication and sharing of published papers.
Click to expand...

I'm not against a prudent approach, by prioritising promising work, and cutting back on dead-ends. No idea why you think otherwise, as I never said otherwise. I've never advocated blindly throwing money at pointless projects for some romanticised notion of scientific discovery.

Space_Chief said:
Wow you super Wikipedia guy you. Find some more research institutions.
Click to expand...

Actually no. They're not particularly small or insignificant, as it happens. I was also reading about this recently. So how is that research of economic or social benefit at this point in time, considering that their donors (mainly the German government) apparently find it worthwhile to fund them?

Space_Chief said:
And who said I said they did real science wrong anyway?

Gosh you have reading comprehension problems.
Click to expand...

You said, matter-of-factly, "...naive view of scientific research you have is not what's practiced in the real world. Go do some real science." So you insinuated that the "naive view of science" that I have is incompatible with how science is done in the real world. Pretty sure the Max Planck Society is doing "real science" in the "real world".
 
Wasn't the first laser made without any idea as to the uses or application?
 
OrbitalDawn said:
As opposed to you who's a genius on every topic imaginable, apparently. Every thread you involve yourself in you speak matter-of-factly, never to be corrected.
Click to expand...

So do you.



And what then? Will I all of a sudden agree with their stance? All the scientists I know are dismayed by this, including at least one theoretical physicist at UCLA.
Click to expand...

How many real scientists do you know? And what makes them experts at fields outside of their own? Experts at economics of science now? Or just afraid to lose funding? Come on.



I'm not against a prudent approach, by prioritising promising work, and cutting back on dead-ends. No idea why you think otherwise, as I never said otherwise. I've never advocated blindly throwing money at pointless projects for some romanticised notion of scientific discovery.
Click to expand...

OK, good to know that.



Actually no. They're not particularly small or insignificant, as it happens. I was also reading about this recently. So how is that research of economic or social benefit at this point in time, considering that their donors (mainly the German government) apparently find it worthwhile to fund them?
Click to expand...

They will fund it as long as it shows promise as per their own criteria.


You said, matter-of-factly, "...naive view of scientific research you have is not what's practiced in the real world. Go do some real science." So you insinuated that the "naive view of science" that I have is incompatible with how science is done in the real world. Pretty sure the Max Planck Society is doing "real science" in the "real world".
Click to expand...

Do science in the real world don't write about it on blogs and forums. You have reading comprehension problems.

Obviously I never said Max Plank don't do real work. But millions of students and post-docs and perhaps some at MP don't or at least they do what works best for them and not where genuine spirit of science leads them. They're not doing this exercise in curiosity of Copernicus or Einstein. Hence I called this BOLLOCKS as it's a romanticized, naive, BS notion only media use. Anyone who works in some form of scientific research knows it's BS.

You have issues getting aggro at people. Grow up. How old are you anyway?
 
Last edited:
Space_Chief said:
Newsflash: If you feel strongly about that, pay for the research yourself. People are happy to spend loads of money on cars, soccer related stuff, entertainment, personal pride etc. Spend instead on that. Do an orphan drug like fund.
Click to expand...

You sir are an idiot.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
The NRC is getting 0.02% of Canada's budget. Excuse me for not taking the 'budget cuts' argument too seriously.
Click to expand...

And 0.02% of $276 billion is? Only $5.5 billion dollars, not much really?
I suggest you check what else has been cut in the last few years, whole departments have disappeared and thousands of jobs cut.

It's a Conservative government, so lots of social services being cut too
 
Last edited:
Space_Chief said:
You have reading comprehension problems too.

This forum is full of immature man-children.
Click to expand...

Yup, am sure it wasnt like this.
Name calling seems to be the norm these days if you don't agree 100% with what people say
 
Space_Chief said:
So do you.
Click to expand...

Hardly. I've been corrected plenty of times, and have learned plenty.

Space_Chief said:
How many real scientists do you know? And what makes them experts at fields outside of their own? Or just afraid to lose funding? Come on.
Click to expand...

Not that many, admittedly. I know that one theoretical physicist from UCLA, a relative actually. I know a couple of doctoral students in SA, as well. All who chose their fields because of interest first. Practical consideration is an obvious thing to be aware of, though, and you align your interest as best possible with what is available and viable to further research.

Space_Chief said:
Experts at economics of science now?
Click to expand...

What makes you an expert in this field? I'm genuinely interested to know.

Not all institutions have the same criteria about what they deem worthy of being researched, either.

Space_Chief said:
They will fund it as long as it shows promise as per their own criteria.
Click to expand...

So a Copernican or Einstein(ean?) like curiosity plays no part in what these people do? That's a big statement about a lot of scientists.

Space_Chief said:
Obviously I never said Max Plank don't do real work. But millions of students and post-docs and perhaps some at MP don't or at least they do what works best for them and not where genuine spirit of science leads them. They're not doing this exercise in curiosity of Copernicus or Einstein. Hence I called this BOLLOCKS as it's a romanticized, naive, BS notion only media use. Anyone who works in some form of scientific research knows it's BS.
Click to expand...

Lawrence Krauss, Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse-Tyson, Carl Sagan, Brian Greene etc. all disagree with you. Unless you're saying they're not involved in "real" scientific research either.

In any case, I think there's a fair amount of overlap possible. Passion and practical feasibility. People working in quantum physics all over the world, for example, don't do it because it's such an amazingly profitable field. Although it could be, what with people trying to develop a quantum computer. :p

Thing is we don't know where the breakthroughs will come, and where the dead-ends will crop up. All I'm saying is we shouldn't be short-sighted in how these things are approached, and I'm afraid this approach by the Canadian authorities discount the reality that sometimes breakthroughs come from research being conducted for its own sake. Also, plenty of scientists' passion is driven by the urge to help society. I know a couple of those, as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X