A Science Christmas Carol: Canadian science in 2017 and what may lie in store for 2018

The past year has been a roller-coaster for many Canadian scientists and has been replete with news and activities. The following retreads the path of the more important developments and, given the time of year, makes the oft-repeated mistake of prognosticating the year to come.

First some perspective. At least we haven’t had a government that proposed to slash the science budget or abandon Puerto Rico nor did we have the very real threat of electing an alleged child molester to the Senate (when Mike Duffy is your biggest Senate concern, you’re in a good place). Indeed, the Canadian government is relatively stable and, mid-term, has just elected three new MPs via by-elections. I had the good fortune of witnessing Question Period on Wednesday of this week, the last session before Parliament recessed for the Holidays. While there was the usual rhetoric over the various contentions of the day, it was invigorating to see healthy democracy in the flesh. With some Ministers and MPs scrolling through their twitter feeds or tidying their desks, there was a sense of calm and normalcy. That’s not how the year began for researchers.

Watershed changes at CIHR

We were hungrily anticipating the release of the report on Fundamental Science (aka the Naylor report). The previous year, the Liberal government had injected significant new funds into the Tricouncils (adding up to over $100 million in total) and the Minister of Science, Kirsty Duncan, had commissioned the first review of fundamental science in Canada in 40 years. Hopes were running high. The review panel spent much of 2016 hearing from researchers across Canada. Meanwhile, problems at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research were coming to a head. Soon after what was widely seen as a “friendly” panel of experts turned in a largely critical report on the state of CIHR investigator initiated programs (the Foundation and Project grants), the President of CIHR and Vice-President of Research abruptly left the organization. As of April 1, in came Rod McInnes as acting President and Anne-Martin Matthews as Acting Vice-President. I was on a CIHR University Delegates call in early April when the leadership change was discussed. During the call, McInnes walked in and there was a cheer from the staff present. CIHR hasn’t looked back. By mid-April CIHR announced major changes to the management of its grants programs including shifting of funds from the Foundation to Project competition (which was repeated later in the year) and equalization of success rates for early career scientists.

The other shoe drops

Meanwhile, on March 22nd, the Federal budget was tabled. There was new money for Artificial Intelligence but zero increase for the Tricouncils. This was met with stunned silence from the research community. Even through the austere years of the prior government, there had, with only one exception, been incremental increases to the Tricouncil budgets, even if only to offset inflation. To be frank, a lot of us were nervous when the Naylor report had failed to surface before the budget. It was released on April 10 and came in at over 240 pages and 35 recommendations. These related to increasing the coordination of the federal funding agencies, increasing equity and diversity, recognizing, supporting and valuing indigenous knowledge, creating a career path for researchers and a funding request. This added up to an additional $1.3 billion on top of the current $3.5 billion spend. The panel proposed a four year ramp up and spent considerable effort in justifying the rationale. It detailed the decline in international standing of Canadian science over the past decade, slippage in rankings and noted that the proposed budgetary increases were designed to restore federal funding to approximately the same relative level as 2006/7.

The Plan to Restore Canadian Research (page 154 of the Report)

The overall report is a masterpiece of scientific policy writing. It lays out the history of science funding in Canada, the importance and place of fundamental research, the various players and mechanisms, and, of course, it provides a slew of diagnoses and recommendations/remedies. The recommendations are dry but are aimed at science policy wonks (sorry). The Report is essential reading for anyone interested in Canadian science (and many who aren’t).

Researchers respond

Researchers are an impatient lot and while the report was received with considerable relish it remains a complex and nuanced document. The Chair, David Naylor, and other panel members spent time to disseminate the primary messages of the report (link to Dr. Naylors slides). There were also several “researcher response: meetings including one in Toronto (published proceeds). The message from all of these events was that the research community was effectively unanimous in “Supporting the Report”. The signal was clear — it is a detailed and careful report that covers many aspects of Canadian science — but our position is clear — we support it in its entirety.

Evidence for this harmony can be found in submissions to the Standing Committee on Finance for Budget 2018 where (for the first time in my memory) effectively all of the policy groups, professional organizations, universities, and lobbist organizations said the same thing. Students and faculty at the University of Toronto sent over 7,000 postcards to the Minister of Science (personally, I’d have sent these to the Minister of Finance as Kirsty Duncan is clearly on record in wanting to see the recommendations implemented — see below). All in all, the Naylor report managed to herd wild cats (scientists of all sorts) together. A magnificient achievement.

Lights, cameras, action — the government response

Having commissioned the report, attention turned to Minister Duncan. Initial signs were not particularly encouraging. In a letter to the Researcher Response meeting in Toronto, we were told about competing priorities and to manage expectations. Over time, a number of the recommendations of the report have been implemented. These include the creation of the Chief Science Advisor (CSA; though this was mentioned in the Ministers mandate letter in 2015), and a coordinating committee (CRCC) for the heads of the Tricouncils and CFI. But, as the Minister of Science quipped at the recent Canadian Science Policy Conference, the elephant in the room (funding) has yet to be addressed. On that note, we won’t know the state of that elephant until the Federal budget of 2018 (likely in March). There are some positive hints on this front. Mona Nemer, the CSA, accompanied the Finance Minister, Bill Morneau, on a tour of University of Ottawa labs and later also met with scientists in Toronto.

What will 2018 behold?

• The following is conjecture and not based on any non-public information. Also partly inspired by @AlexUsherHESA’s blog today.

Reading the Ottawa tea leaves, there are several factors that may/should influence the governments position on science in 2018. Firstly, although we are still two budgets away from the 2019 Federal election, all parties are positioning themselves for that test. The current government, by creating a Minister for Science, appointing a CSA and branding “evidence-based decision-making” at the centre of its way of doing business has established a high level brand differentiator. But that is contingent on continuous signalling of intent to maintain affinity for science. Opposition parties have noticed the disquiet around the silence on funding. Researchers have been here before and photo-ops and kind words don’t keep labs open. I am confident we will not see a repeat of the omission of Budget 2017. There will be new dollars for the Tricouncils. The question is how much.

Is the Naylor report’s ask reasonable? No commissioned report is ever fulfilled in toto but the case made by the panel is compelling and painstakingly justified. The suggestion is for a four year roll out. This is highly flexible and similar to other long term investments. I doubt any scientist would blink at the term being increased, effectively buying time and lowering dollars. The primary concern is that the response is in the form of a multi-year commitment. We’ll be looking for a signal that there is intent to restore Canada’s agency in science in a multiple year plan. And at what better time? As seen in the recent Canada 150 Chair announcement, we can recruit back ex-pat Canadians as well as fantastic researchers who’ve never lived here. But they will need a vibrant scientific ecosystem to thrive, as do our existing researchers. In addition, we’re in the midst of recruiting a new President to CIHR. Here’s hoping that persons’ conditions of employment include a multi-year base budget increase. The contrast of an evidence- and science-based government that recognizes the direct threat of climate change and denial of science with that to the south of us has never been more stark.

The Report also steers the government to look at repurposing funds already aligned with existing programs. From page 153: “We note further that some offsetting savings may be achieved downstream depending on the assessments of the yields and opportunity costs of the CERC and CFREF programs.”

Yes! Please end niche science initiatives. They are intrinsically short term and usually the result of intense lobbying, the loudest of whom wins. Science invariably loses. Why Universities are so supportive of these ribbon-cutting follies is beyond me (oh, wait). We are too small a country to bet on winners. Instead, we need to bet on a diversity of minds. The government is a deserved promoter of equity and diversity, starting with a gender balanced cabinet. Similarly, advances in science directly depend upon maximal diversity of thought. Some 75% of Tricouncil funds go to support trainees and skilled technicians. These people are the pool from which a knowledge based economy grows. A vibrant, internationally competitive scientific ecosystem attracts the best of the worlds minds. These attributes write the next election manifesto. Youth! Diversity! Skills! Jobs! Not-Trump! (Middle-Class!).

So, here’s a possible recipe for success. Dear Justin Trudeau, please make it clear that this country is so serious about the importance of scientific activity to our future, that we will become synonymous with a society based on advanced science and technology. To achieve this, we will grow our research funding base (Tricouncils, CFI, etc.) by 10% per year for 5 years and then tie future additions to %GDP growth+2%.

We can do this. (Budget) 2018, bring it on!