What Should Scientific Organizations Say about Religion?

 
The poll has closed and here are the results.


A slight majority say that organizations like AAAS (amd NAS) should say nothing about the compatibility of science and religion. I think that's the correct choice.

What's surprising (to me) is that 31% of you said these organizations should say that science and religion are incompatible. I believe this is true but I still think that scientific organizations should not say anything. They don't speak for their members on this topic.

I'm glad to see that only 14% of Sandwalk readers support the unsupportable statement that science and religion are compatible.

---

Mixing Science, Religion, and Politics

 
The first draft of the human genome sequence was announced on June 26, 2000. There was a huge press conference in the East Room of the White House with Craig Venter, President Bill Clinton, and Francis Collins. British Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared via videolink from London.

The event is recounted on pages 2 & 3 of Francis Collins' book The Language of God. It's worth recalling because it reminds Americans of what they can expect if Collins were to become head of NIH.

But the most important part of his speech that most attracted public attention jumped from the scientific perspective to the spiritual. "Today," [Clinton] said, "we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift."

Was I, a rigorously trained scientist, taken aback at such a blatantly religious reference by the leader of the free world at a moment such as this? Was I tempted to scowl or look at the floor in embarrassment? No, not at all. In fact I had worked closely with the president's speechwriter in the frantic days just prior to this announcement, and had strongly endorsed the inclusion of this paragraph. When it came time for me to add a few words of my own, I echoed this sentiment: "It's a happy day for the world. It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."

What was going on here? Why would a president and a scientist, charged with announcing a milestone in biology and medicine, feel compelled to invoke a connection with God? Aren't the scientific and spiritual worldviews antithetical, or shouldn't they at lest avoid appearing in the East Room together? What were the reasons for invoking God in those two speeches? Was this poetry? Hypocrisy? A cynical attempt to curry favor from believers, or to disarm those who might criticize this study of the human genome as reducing humankind to machinery? No. Not for me. Quite the contrary, for me the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship.

---

Francis Collins and the National Institutes of Health (USA)

 
After many years of service as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), Francis Collins resigned from NIH last year. His reasons for quitting were widely reported in the media. Here's the press release from NIH [Francis S. Collins to Step Down as Director of National Human Genome Research Institute].

Dr. Collins explained that his decision to step down as leader of NHGRI came after much personal deliberation. "My decision was driven by a desire for an interval of time dedicated to writing, reflection and exploration of other professional opportunities in the public or private sectors," he said. "The demands and responsibilities of directing an NIH institute do not allow the time commitment necessary for this. In addition, I may need greater latitude than my current position allows to pursue other potential positions of service without encountering any possible conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived."

We now know that the "real or perceived" conflict of interest relates to the creation of The BioLogos Foundation. Here's the mission statement.

Dr. Francis Collins established The BioLogos Foundation to address the escalating culture war between science and faith in the United States. On one end of the spectrum, “new atheists” argue that science removes the need for God. On the other end, religious fundamentalists argue that the Bible requires us to reject much of modern science. Many people - including scientists and believers in God - do not find these extreme options attractive.

BioLogos represents the harmony of science and faith. It addresses the central themes of science and religion and emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life. To communicate this message to the general public and add to the ongoing dialog, The BioLogos Foundation created BioLogos.org.

Funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, the Web site is a reliable source of scholarly thought on contemporary issues in science and faith that highlights the compatibility of modern science with traditional Christian beliefs. BioLogos.org features responses to a myriad of questions received by Collins, author of The Language of God, Karl Giberson, author of Saving Darwin, and Darrel Falk, author of Coming to Peace With Science since the publication of their books.

It's pretty obvious why running such a foundation is not compatible with a leadership role at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

That's what makes this report in Scientific American so disturbing [Former Human Genome Project leader Francis Collins likely next NIH director].

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will likely bring on geneticist Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, as its new director, Bloomberg News reported on Saturday.

The agency, which has been run by acting director Raynard Kington since October 2008 after Elias Zerhouni stepped down, is in late stages of screening Collins, noted Bloomberg.

Fortunately, we can be confident that the rumor isn't true. With Barack Obama as President of the United States, the appointment of someone like Francis Collins should never happen. Things are going to change in Washington.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the rumor were true and the new head of NIH did not have the enthusiastic support of most scientists? That's the sort of thing that happened under the previous President.

---

Michael Bliss - Anti-Science Conservative

 
Michael Bliss is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto. He has written some excellent books on the history of science, notably a book about the discovery of insulin.

Bliss has always been a small-c conservative and many of his opinion pieces have supported conservative policies.

On Thursday, May 14th, Michael Bliss entered the debate on Canadian science funding [Michael Bliss: Anti-Harper campaign politicizes research to the detriment of science]. His main point is that Canadian scientists are whiners and complainers who should keep their mouths shut because they are damaging the reputation of science in Canada.

It’s time that responsible leaders of the Canadian science and research communities began thinking of ways to cool down their more hot-headed colleagues. The strategy of declaring war on a government because some of its policies are temporarily inconvenient and vexatious can generate cheap short-term applause and support in some quarters, but in the long run tags its adherents as unreliable and unworthy, or worse. Eventually doors get shut in their faces, and/or they’re left to wither on the vine.

It’s a sad way to tarnish what often has been and still could be one of the success stories of Canadian public policy.

I've never been a fan of Michael Bliss but this diatribe goes way over the line. Scientists are justifiably criticizing a science policy that they feel is doing great damage to Canada's ability to be competitive in the 21st century. Michael Bliss is saying that scientists should not speak out when they disagree with government policy. That's a strange position for someone who has made a reputation of speaking out on controversial topics.

But it's at least consistent with conservative thinking.

Michael Bliss thinks it's OK for governments to direct scientific research. He thinks the only important kind of research is that which directly benefits business and consumers. Applied research and technology is "accountable."

By and large, Canadian researchers have not had a bad inning in recent years. Some observers think that the research community has actually had an easy ride, never having been forced to show exactly what benefits are being generated for the Canadian people by the money given researchers. If the government of Canada ever decided, for example, that this country should lead the world in demanding hard accountability from researchers who live off taxpayers’ largesse, today’s discontents would seem like extremely small beer.

I suppose that's why Bliss admires Banting and Best and the others who discovered and produced insulin. I suppose he hates those scientists who discovered recombinant DNA technology to help with their curiosity motivated research even though it led directly to the production of human insulin—a far more effective form than the old insulin from pigs.

The main product of research is knowledge and knowledge is always of more benefit to the Canadian people than ignorance. During his many decades at the University of Toronto, Michael Bliss and his students contributed to that knowledge base in many ways. Some of the work in history that he published was paid for by research grants. I wonder if he can meet the demand of "hard accountability" that he demands of others? With respect to his own scholarly work, I wonder if he can explain "exactly what benefits are being generated for the Canadian people"?

(Read Commentary strives to politicize science funding debate on Researcher Forum for a similar perspective on Michael Bliss.)

---

The Problems with Research Funding in Canada

 
Jim Turk is Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). He is a staunch defender of university research, especially curiosity motivated research.

In Tuesday's Globe and Mail, Turk explains why current government policy is wrong. It puts too much emphasis on research that directly helps business and not enough on fundamental research [Get the state out of the labs of the nation].

He also makes a point that needs emphasis. The Presidents of Canada's granting agencies are getting into bed with the government. They increasingly see themselves as obedient pawns of the government and not as independent agents who will stand up for what they believe in regardless of the consequences.

Our federal government has acknowledged that politicians should not try to pick winners and losers in the economic marketplace, but persists in trying to do so in the marketplace of ideas. In the 2007 and 2008 budgets, the federal government dictated where new money for granting councils could be spent - ruling out the vast majority of researchers' work. In the 2009 budget, it restricted new social science humanities graduate scholarships to students "focused on business-related degrees."

That research funding has become politicized was also evident when the presidents of the three granting councils - the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research - failed to object when their budgets were cut, and when Genome Canada's president expressed concerns, then quickly retracted them. Canada's research funding agencies should be made arms' length from government.

---

[Hat Tip: T. Ryan Gregory: Genomicron]

Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships

 
There are 166 winners of Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships. Of these, 34 are from the University of Toronto and several will be in the labs of my close colleagues. Congratulations to all the winners.

The scholarships will be administered by the three granting councils and each one is worth an astonishing $50,000 per year. That means that these scholarships amount to twice the level of funding of a typical graduate student at my university.

There's no sound logic behind awarding such a sum. T. Ryan Gregory points out that if the scholarships had been for $25,000 per year, the excess could have funded 73 research grants at an average of $34,000 per year. I agree that this money could have been better spent.

---

Gary Goodyear Explains Canada's Science Policy

 
Gary Goodyear, you might recall, is Canada's Minster of State (Science and Technology). He is a chiropractor who doesn't accept the scientific view of evolution.

The policy of the Conservative Party is to cut funding to the major granting agencies (SSHRC, NSERC, CIHR) by $148 million over the next few years. This will have a disastrous effect on basic research in Canada.

At a recent meeting in Washington (USA), Goodyear explained how Conservative ideology is driving science funding [Canadian research may hold key to ‘clean coal:' Goodyear].

Only days after Mr. Obama delighted America's scientific community by saying the “days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over” – a clear reference to the eight years George W. Bush was president – Mr. Goodyear made a point of claiming Canada's Conservative government took science seriously.

“Canada sees the role of science and technology in contributing to global economic growth and recovery,” he said. “We know that the jobs of tomorrow are found in the discoveries of today, so we look at research funding as investment — investment in innovation, in scientific discovery, in job creation, and as a hedge against tough economic conditions.”

But he also said the government's role in funding science went beyond backing pure research. Ottawa's science spending reflects “our government's emphasis on commercializing research and improving the processes that help get innovative ideas to the marketplace,” Mr. Goodyear told a two-day AAAS forum on science and technology.

“Commercialization is one area in which public policy makers play a huge role in enabling the private sector to do what it does best — turn knowledge into innovation, and innovation into greater wealth and well-being for people.”

I wish I were an American. President Obama seems to know the difference between science and technology and he seems to understand where real creativity and innovation can be found—it's not in technology development, it's in curiosity motivated basic research.

---

Should Scientific Organizations Advocate Accommodationism?

 
John Wilkins has started an interesting debate on the topic of Science and religion for individuals and organisations. He starts with a couple of multiple choice questions.

Get on over to Evolving Thoughts and share your evolving thoughts on the subject. Meanwhile you can answer my own multiple choice question in the sidebar.

What should scientific organizations like AAAS and NAS say about religion?

a) that religion and science are compatible
b) that religion and science are incompatbile
c) nothing

---

Bob McDonald Explains why Canadian Scientists Are Upset

 
Bob McDonald is the host of Quirks & Quarks on CBC radio. He has a blog and here's part of what he posted on Friday [Another Earth Day, Canadian scientists concerned].

While people around the globe celebrate the beauty of our planet on Earth Day, April 22nd, scientists in Canada are concerned that government funding is heading in the wrong direction to provide sensible solutions to environmental problems. More than 2000 scientists from across the country have signed an open letter to Prime Minister Harper and the Leader of the Opposition, expressing concerns over cuts to basic science research. It’s basic science that takes the pulse of the planet.

The scientists are concerned that government money is overlooking vital areas. For example, the current Conservative budget allocates $2 billion for university infrastructure - in other words, renovations to aging buildings. But those funds come with a catch. They must be matched with private funding, something everyone is having trouble finding during these tough economic times. Keeping roofs on buildings is important, but if there are no scientists to work in them, what’s the point?

The Canada Foundation for Innovation, a major source of science funding, did receive $740 million, but it also comes with that match-funding hook. The other funding agencies, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, have had their budgets cut back, while Genome Canada was essentially ignored.

The rest of the government’s support for science is going towards the automotive industry, carbon sequestration, biofuels and scholarships for business students. In other words, applied science is taking precedent over basic science.

While we do need both, when it comes to the environment, the two types of science are often at loggerheads.

Politicians like to support applied science because it leads to jobs and products, such as more efficient cars or new wireless devices. Basic science, on the other hand, can’t promise an immediate economic return because it simply looks at nature to understand how things work - and more importantly these days, how things are changing. As we’ve seen with climate change, basic scientists have been out in the field watching ice caps disappear before their eyes, carbon dioxide levels rise and climate patterns shift. At the same time, those dealing with the technology at the heart of the problem resist the basic science to keep the current systems in place.

---

[Hat Tip: T. Ryan Gregory]

Sign the Open Letter

 
Are you a Canadian scientist who is upset about cuts to research funding by the current government? Read the Open letter to the Prime Minister and Leader of the opposition and add your name to the list of over 2000 scientists.

---

Gary Goodyear's Letter to Nature

 
Canadian government reaffirms support for science and discovery

Sir

You report researchers' concerns about the Canadian government's support for science in two recent News stories (Nature 457, 646; 2009 and Nature 458, 393; 2009). As Minister of State for Science and Technology, I can say that, despite the global economic situation, the government of Canada remains committed to innovation and discovery. We have increased funding to researchers, both in universities and in the private sector.

In the past three years, for example, we have significantly increased the budgets of federal granting councils, increased scholarships through the Canada Graduate Scholarships Program, and increased the Industrial Research Assistance Program for small and medium-sized businesses. The Budget 2009 announcements include Can$750 million (US$590 million) for the Canada Foundation for Innovation to attract and retain world-leading researchers, and a Can$2-billion infrastructure programme. The government has also put in place two five-year funding agreements with Genome Canada that are worth Can$240 million, to support large-scale, world-class research.

Your readers should therefore rest assured that the government of Canada will continue to fund research for the benefit of all scientists and Canadians.

Isn't it strange that basic science researchers are upset about the fact that funding to the major granting councils has been cut for the next three years?

Either the researchers are correct, and Canadian basic research is in trouble, or Gary Goodyear is correct and the Conservatives are doing a fine job.

I know who is telling the truth.

---

Applying to NSERC? Everyone gets a grant!

 
According to a study done by Richard Gordon and Bryan J. Poulin, Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving Every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant. (NSERC is Canada's funding agency for non-medical science research.)

Using Natural Science and Engineering Research Council Canada (NSERC) statistics, we show that the $40,000 (Canadian) cost of preparation for a grant application and rejection by peer review in 2007 exceeded that of giving every qualified investigator a direct baseline discovery grant of $30,000 (average grant). This means the Canadian Federal Government could institute direct grants for 100% of qualified applicants for the same money. We anticipate that the net result would be more and better research since more research would be conducted at the critical idea or discovery stage. Control of quality is assured through university hiring, promotion and tenure proceedings, journal reviews of submitted work, and the patent process, whose collective scrutiny far exceeds that of grant peer review. The greater efficiency in use of grant funds and increased innovation with baseline funding would provide a means of achieving the goals of the recent Canadian Value for Money and Accountability Review. We suggest that developing countries could leapfrog ahead by adopting from the start science grant systems that encourage innovation.

This sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks to Bora Zivkovic of A Blog Around the Clock for finding the paper.

---

A field guide to misunderstandings about open access

 
Want to find out what Open Access is really all about? Read A field guide to misunderstandings about open access.

Do you think that articles in open access journals aren't peer reviewed? Think again.

Do you think that all open access journals charge huge publication fees? Wrong.

Do you think that open access journals are lower quality? Nope.

---

[Hat Tip: Bora Zivkovic: A Blog Around the Clock]

Don't Leave Canada Behind

 
This is a letter sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Leader of the Opposition Michael Ignatieff. It is signed by hundreds of Canadian scientists. I don't expect it to have any effect on Harper but it will be interesting to see if the Liberal Party decides to support science.

March 16, 2009

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper Prime Minister of Canada The Right Honourable Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Opposition Ottawa

Subject: Don't leave Canada behind

Dear Prime Minister, Dear Leader of the Opposition

U.S. President Barack Obama is taking advantage of the current financial crisis to push his country forward in new directions by greatly boosting funding to scientific research and education as a means to jump start innovation in a new economy. The scope of his vision is stunning, including an increase of more than $15 billion in scientific research, and a promise to double the funding for education in the next 10 years. For more details, see http://www.sciencedebate2008.com.

Our government has also tried to stimulate the research / university sector in Canada, wishing to take important initiatives. At the heart of the plan is a $2 billion dollars infrastructure fund for shovel-ready renovation projects in post-secondary institutions, a fund that was actively solicited by university presidents. There is also an additional $750 million for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and $87.5 million over three years for doctoral scholarships. While these funding announcements are surely welcome, we would like to share our concerns as to the potential effect of some of these decisions, in particular in view of the bold and visionary course taken by the Obama administration south of the border.

1. When the U.S. government is proposing to boost the funding of the National Science Foundation (NSF) by 40% ($3 billion on top of its current $6.9 billion), we see Canada’s "stimulus budget" cutting NSERC's by 5%. When the U.S. administration is proposing to boost the funding of the National Institute of Health (NIH) by 30% ($8.5 billion in addition to its current $29 billion), our "stimulus budget" is cutting CIHR's by 5%, while essentially ignoring the needs of Genome Canada. When US researchers are being actively approached for ideas to use the stimulus money to think big and to hire and retain their researchers, their Canadian counterparts are now scrambling to identify budget cuts for their Labs, while worrying about the future of their graduating students. Recent Tri-council grants competitions, which were post stimulus budget, are already pointing towards sharply lower success rates (by more than 20% in some disciplines), lower start-up grants for young researchers, and negligible research funding for smaller institutions and provinces. These cuts are huge steps backward for Canadian Science and we ask the government to immediately develop a multi-year plan to significantly increase this country’s R&D investment through our granting councils.

2. The infrastructure support for Canada's post-secondary institutions is surely beneficial for their depleted budgets for deferred maintenance. However, the federal support requires 50% in matching funds which few institutions currently have. The net effect of this decision will be to dictate priorities for universities and provincial governments too eager to get the federal funds, and as such to divert further funds from teaching, training and research. We therefore ask government to drop the requirement of matching funds.

3. The CFI has provided a tremendous boost to certain aspects of Canada's research infrastructure over the last 10 years. However, the constraints of the program have left many important research disciplines out of its potential beneficial impact. Moreover, similar matching rules continue to apply to CFI projects, and as a consequence of the present lack of available support from the private sector and from provincial governments, even some of the already approved projects are being postponed and cancelled. At this point in time, we believe that removing the matching requirements for current and future CFI projects would be extremely beneficial for Canada and its research infrastructure.

4. The funding of an additional 500 doctoral scholarships is great news for a country that is committed to have ``the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world". However, it seems this funding is coming at the expense of the highly qualified personnel (HQP’s) that could have been recruited more efficiently by our senior researchers through their Tri-Council grants. We believe that a more efficient strategy for ensuring a successful HQP policy is to give our leading researchers the flexibility to manage the selection, recruitment, and support of their own graduate students through their peer-reviewed research grants, and via well-established leveraging procedures with the universities and the private sector. We also regret that the $17.5-million assigned to SSHRC for graduate scholarships have been earmarked towards students in business and finance. As Alain Dubuc writes in La Presse: ``En boudant certains domaines de recherche, nos universités vont perdre leur pouvoir d'attraction. Et bien des jeunes talentueux iront ailleurs.
(See http://www.cyberpresse.ca/)

5. President Obama is proposing to double federal funding for education over the next 10 years, and pledging to “restore science to its rightful place” with billions in new investments. To advise his government, he has appointed leading scientists to his cabinet and as his advisors (including a Nobel laureate as energy Secretary). The Obama administration has also involved the directors of NIH and NSF in federal budget discussions about the future of research. We need a similar approach in Canada, where top research scientists and humanists can help shape directions in Ottawa for research funding.

A new economy is coming out of this crisis and research and development will be the lifeblood to that new economy. We call upon you not to let Canada be left behind.

Sincerely,

Margaret Ann Armour, Chemistry, Order of Canada (University of Alberta) Tom Archibald, Chair of Mathematics (Simon Fraser University) Alejandro Adem, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Tom Allison (University of British Columbia) Ali Arya, Information Technology (Carleton University) Peter Abrams, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Toronto) Jim Arthur, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Marshall Agueh, Mathematics (University of Victoria) John Beamish, Chair, Physics (University of Alberta) Edward Bierstone, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Yaacov Ben-David, Biophysics (University of Toronto) Herman Brunner, Mathematics (Memorial University) Margaret Beattie, Mathematics (Mount Allison University) Peter Borwein, Mathematics (Simon Fraser University) Anne Bourlioux, Mathematics (Universite de Montreal) Hans U. Boden, Chair, Math and Statistics (McMaster University) David Brydges, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Martin Barlow, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Michael Bennett, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Kai Behrendt, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Mark Bauer (University of Calgary) Vijay Bhargava, Electrical Engineering (University of British Columbia) Hichem Ben-El-Mechaiekh,Chair, Mathematics (Brock University) Sydney Bulman-Fleming, Chair, Mathematics (Wilfred Laurier University) Sandra Barr, Acting Head, Earth and Environmental Science (Acadia University) W. Kendal Bushe, Mechanical Engineering (University of British Columbia) Sherryl Bisgrove, Biological Sciences (Simon Fraser University) Mary Berbee, Botany, (University of British Columbia) Jeff Babb, Chair, Mathematics and Statistics (University of Winnipeg) Maxim R. Burke, Chair, Mathematics and Statistics (University of PEI) Susan Baldwin (University of British Columbia) Chris Bose, Mathematics (University of Victoria) Patrick Brosnan, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Michelle Boue (Trent University) John Bowman, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Walter Craig, Mathematics (McMaster University) John Carter, Applied Science and Engineering (University of Toronto) Rustum Choksi, Mathematics (Simon Fraser University) Dan Coombs, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Clifton Cunningham, Mathematics (University of Calgary) Mohamed Cheriet, Engineering (École de technologie supérieure, Montreal) Marilyn Chapman (University of British Columbia) Eric Cytrynbaum, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Jingyi Chen, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) K. Carriere Cough, Statistics, (University of Alberta) Richard Craster, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Vladimir Chernousov, Mathematics (University of Alberta) James Colliander, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Christina C. Christara, Computer Science (University of Toronto) John Clague, Earth Sciences (Simon Fraser University) Laura Cowen, Mathematics (University of Victoria) Paul Deguire directeur, mathématiques et de statistique (Université de Moncton) Karl Dilcher, Chair, Math. and Stats. (Dalhousie) Lawrence M. Dill (Simon Fraser University) Henri Darmon, Mathematics (McGill University) Rob DeWreede, Botany, (University of British Columbia) Gregory Dudek, Chair, Computer Science (McGill University) Dan Dumont, Director, Molecular and Cellular Biology (University of Toronto) David Dunlop, Physics (University of Toronto) Ivar Ekeland, Math Economics (University of British Columbia) George Elliott, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Kadriye Ercikan, Education (University of British Columbia) Yousry Elsabrouty (The University of Calgary) Neil Emery, Director, Environmental & Life Sciences (Trent University) Roderick Edwards (University of Victoria) Ian Frigaard, Math and Mech. Engineering (University of British Columbia) Don Fraser, Statistics (University of Toronto) Richard Froese, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Don Fisher (University of British Columbia) Eugene Fiume, Computer Science (University of Toronto) John Friedlander, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Jorge Filmus, Molecular and Cellular Biology (University of Toronto) Nassif Ghoussoub, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Randy Goebel, Computing Science (University of Alberta) Dan Gibson, Earth Sciences (Simon Fraser University) Andrew Granville, Mathematics (Universite de Montreal) Pengfei Guan, Mathematics (McGill University) Ling Guan, Electrical Engineering (Ryerson) Sean Graham, Botany (University of British Columbia) Dmitri Goussev (Gusev), Chair, Chemistry (Wilfrid Laurier University) Stephen Gustafson, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Terry Gannon, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Veronique Godin, Mathematics (University of Calgary) J. Scott Goble, Education (University of British Columbia) Charles Gale, Chair, Physics (McGill University) Ed Grant, Head,Chemistry (University of British Columbia) Ian Graham, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Jacques Hurtubise, Chair, Mathematics & Statistics (McGill University) Hedley David, Medecine (University of Toronto) Viqar Husain, Chair, Mathematics (U.New Brunswick) Stephen B. Heard Chair, Biology (University of New Brunswick, Fredericton) François Huard, Head, Mathematics (Bishop's University) Nicola J Hodges, School of Human Kinetics (University of British Columbia) Felix Herrmann, Earth and Ocean Science (University of British Columbia) Dr. Holger Hintelmann, Chair, Department of Chemistry (Trent University) Craig Heinke, Physics (University of Alberta) Anita Hubley, Education (The University of British Columbia) Alexander Holroyd, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Reinhard Illner, Mathematics (University of Victoria) Victor Ivrii, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Andrew Irvine (University of British Columbia) Slim Ibrahim (University of Victoria) Sebastian Jaimungal, Statistics (University of Toronto) Lisa Jeffrey, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Daniel James, Physics (University of Toronto) Robert Jerrard, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Rachel Kuske, Head, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Young-June Kim, Physics (University of Toronto) Young-Heon Kim, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Niky Kamran, Mathematics (McGill University) Kalpdrum Passi, Chair, Mathematics & Computer Science (Laurentian University) Boualem Khouider, Mathematics ( University of Victoria) Kalle Karu, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Maria Klawe, Computer Science (President of Harvey Mudd) Patrick Keeling, Botany, (University of British Columbia) Jennifer Klenz, Botany, (University of British Columbia) Leslie R. Kerr, Biology/Psychology (Trent University) Faqir Khanna, Physics (University of Alberta) Don Krug, Education (University of British Columbia) Raymond Kapral, Chemistry (University of Toronto) Anthony Lau, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Robert K. Logan, Physics (University of Toronto) Michael Lamoureux, Mathematics (University of Calgary) Yue Xian Li, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Victor Leung, Electrical Engineering (University of British Columbia) Victor G. LeBlanc, Directeur, Chair, Mathematics (University of Ottawa) Wenyuan Liao (University of Calgary) Mark Lewis, Mathematics (University of Alberta) James Lewis, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Aaron Levin (University of Alberta) Alexander Litvak, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Paul Lasko, Chair, Biology (McGill University) Sheldon Lin, Statistics (University of Toronto) Hoi-Kwong Lo, Electrical and Computer Engineering (University of Toronto) Wendy Lou, Biostatistics (University of Toronto) Ben Liang, Electrical and Computer Engineering (University of Toronto) Bill Langford, Mathematics (Guelph University) Marcelo Laca (University of Victoria) Alan Mackworth, Computer Science (University of British Columbia) Bojan Mohar, Mathematics (Simon Fraser University) Richard G. Miller, Biophysics and Immunology (University of Toronto) Greg Martin, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Robert McCann, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Franklin Mendivil (Acadia University) Akos Magyar, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Brian Marcus, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Barrie McCullough (University of British Columbia, Okanagan) Robert Moody, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Patrick Martone, Botany, (University of British Columbia) Peter Minev, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Amy Metcalfe, Education (University of British Columbia) Jim Mattsson (Simon Fraser University) Bill Milsom, Head, Zoology (University of British Columbia) Eckhard Meinrenken, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Sharon Morsink, Physics (University of Alberta) Bonny Norton, Education (University of British Columbia) Raymond Ng, Computer sc. (University of British Columbia) Adrian Nachman, Electrical and Computer Engineering (University of Toronto) Carl Ollivier-Gooch, P.Eng. (University of British Columbia) Fergal O'Hagan (Trent University) Peter Ottensmeyer, Medical Biophysics (University of Toronto) Don Page, Physics (University of Alberta) Anthony Peirce, Mathematics (University of British Columbia),Ed Perkins, Mathematics (University of British Columbia), Marion Porath (University of British Columbia) Roger Pierre, Directeur, Mathematiques et de statistique (Universite Laval) Cindy Prescott, Forestry (University of British Columbia) Arturo Pianzola, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Royann Petrell (University of British Columbia) Peter Pivovarov (University of Alberta) Daniel D. Pratt, Education (University of British Columbia) Erich Poppitz, Physics (University of Toronto) Ue-Li Pen, Astrophysics (University of Toronto) Toniann Pitassi, Computer Science (University of Toronto) Ian Putnam, Mathematics (University of Victoria) Jeremy Quastel, Mathematics and Statistics (University of Toronto) Christiane Rousseau (Universite de Montreal) David J. Rowe, Physics (University of Toronto) Andrew Rechnitzer, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Cristian Rios, Mathematics (University of Calgary) Chris Radford, Head Mathematics and Statistics (Memorial University) Loren Rieseberg, Botany (University of British Columbia), Dale Rolfsen, Mathematics (University of British Columbia), Reinhard Jetter, Botany (University of British Columbia) Volker Runde, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Omar Rivasplata (University of Alberta) Peter C. Ruben, Director Kinesiology (Simon Fraser University) Steven Rogak, Mech. Eng. (University of British Columbia) Jeffrey Rosenthal, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Jonathan Rose, Chair of Electrical and Computer Engineering (University of Toronto) Nancy Reid, Statistics (University of Toronto) Joe Repka, Mathematics (University of Toronto) William Reed, Mathematics (University of Victoria) Gordon Slade, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Stephen Strother, Medical Biophysics (University of Toronto) Gordon Semenoff, Physics (University of British Columbia) Mohamad Sawan, Engineering (Polytechnique, University of Montreal) Viena Stastna (University of Calgary) Fred Sack, Head of Botany (University of British Columbia) Paul Stephenson, Head, Mathematics and Statistics (Acadia University) Raj Srinivasan, Chair, Mathematics (University of Saskatchewan),Brian Seymour, Mathematics (University of British Columbia),Anne Scholefield, Education (University of British Columbia) Jedrzej Sniatycki, Mathematics (University of Calgary) K D Srivastava, Engineering (University of British Columbia) Philip Stamp, Physics (University of British Columbia) Dominik Schoetzau, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Paul L. Smith, Head, Earth and Ocean Sciences (University of British Columbia) Sudarshan Sehgal, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Catherine Sulem, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Theodore Shepherd, Physics (University of Toronto) Vuk Stambolic, Medical Biophysics (University of Toronto) Nicole Tomczak-Jaegermann (University of Alberta) Peter Tiidus, Acting Dean, Science (Wilfrid Laurier University) Phillippe Tortell, Botany, (University of British Columbia) John R. Topic (Trent University) Elisabeth Tillier, Genomics (University of Toronto) Tai-Peng Tsai, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Derek J. Thorkelson, Chair, Earth Sciences (Simon Fraser University) Mak Trifkovic (University of Victoria) Bill Unruh, Physics (University of British Columbia) Jennifer A. Vadeboncoeur, Education (University of British Columbia) Stephanie van Willigenburg, , Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Andrew Vreugdenhil, Director, Materials Science (Trent University) Frank Weichman, Physics (University of Alberta) Rabab Ward, Electrical Engineering (University of British Columbia) Brent Ward, Earth Sciences (Simon Fraser University) Michael Ward, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Jason Waywitka (University of Alberta) Doug Wiens (University of Alberta) Eric Woolgar, Physics (University of Alberta) Tony Ware, Mathematics (University of Calgary) Shoshana Wodak, Biochemistry, and Molecular Genetics (University of Toronto) Margaret Wyeth (University of Victoria) Glyn Williams-Jones, Earth Sciences (Simon Fraser University) Reem Yassawi, Head, Math (Trent University) Vlad Yaskin (university of Alberta) Janet Ye, Mathematics (University of Victoria) Nora Znotinas, Chair, Physics & Computer Science (Wilfrid Laurier University) Richard Zemel, Computer Science (University of Toronto) Julie Zhou, Mathematics (University of Victoria)

---

[Hat Tip: Genomicron]

John Moore Gets It Right

 
Believe it or not, there are columnists at The National Post who actually understand the issue concerning Gary Goodyear's beliefs. John Moore tells it like it is when he says, ignorance is not a civil right.

Of course it matters whether the Science Minister acknowledges or contests evolution. This isn't a case of a politician who likes to read the Bible and pray -- it's a Cabinet Minister who holds philosophical beliefs that are antithetical to his portfolio. Jonathan Kay insists Christian-hating lefties would never raise similar alarm over a Cabinet minister of another faith. Well this leftie, who holds faith in considerably high regard, would have very serious concerns about an aboriginal justice minister who declined to comment on the efficacy of Western legal systems, and would be even more up in arms if a Scientologist health minister refused to discuss mental illness. And I'm pretty sure the National Post editorial board would have some pretty pointed questions for a Muslim MP given the status of women portfolio.

The first problem with Goodyear is that he fronts the science portfolio in a government that has demonstrated through its most recent budget that it doesn't value the sector. The man delegated to argue the vital importance of science at the Cabinet table doesn't actually know what it is. More significantly, Goodyear's insistence that religion should come to bear on science provides comfort to those who teach their children the falsehood that to follow God you must reject science.

This is the willful dissemination of scientific illiteracy. More frankly put, it is the promotion of stupidity.

I wish I'd written that!

---

Gary Goodyear "Clarifies" Some More

 
Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, is being asked of clarify his position on science. Is he, or is he not, anti-science? Specifically, does he reject the scientific fact of evolution? Yesterday, newspapers reported on his wishy-washy definition of evolution. Most people concluded that he is, indeed, a creationist of the sort that rejects science.

Today's National Post documents the evolving strategy of the Conservative Party and their friends. They are trying to make this into an issue about freedom of religion rather than a simple question of scientific literacy [My beliefs not relevant: Goodyear].

In light of those responses, critics were still wondering yesterday whether someone who believes the Earth is just thousands of years old is heading Canada's science and technology sector.

Mr. Goodyear bucked at requests to clarify his point of view yesterday, cutting short a question into whether he defined evolution in the popular Darwinian sense.

"My entire background has been in science, and my personal beliefs are not important," Mr. Goodyear repeated. "What I'm doing and what the government is doing to move this country forward -- that's important."

When pressed, Mr. Goodyear added that there would be no conflict of interest for a minister heading the science and technology industry to hold a belief in creationism.

"Absolutely not. How ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous. That's why I didn't answer the question, because it has no relevance," he said.

Hmmm ... let's think about this for a minute. How many people think it's relevant that a Minister of Science and Technology is anti-science?

---

NSERC President Praises Gary Goodyear

 
Gary Goodyear is Canada's Minister of State (Science and Technology). His government has just cut funding of basic research grants by $148 million over the next three years. Gary Goodyear is a chiropractor and he may be a creationist.

So, what does the President of NSERC think of this? See the [press release].

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper ventured into the lion's den Monday, defending his government's record on science funding before some of the country's top researchers.

He emerged without a scratch.

Indeed, he actually basked in praise for Gary Goodyear, his minister of state for science and technology.

Goodyear has been much maligned by some scientists who maintain research was shortchanged in the Jan. 27 federal budget. But there was no criticism Monday at an awards ceremony for the winners of prestigious research prizes handed out by the federally funded Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.

"It has been a real pleasure for us to work with the Hon. Gary Goodyear," said NSERC president Suzanne Fortier.

"He has already proven himself a champion of the science and technology community."

I know some people who would disagree with Suzanne Fortier. Two representatives of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) didn't have such a favorable impression [When Chiropractors Get Angry ....].

Some people would argue that. as a kind of public servant, the President of NSERC should not criticize government policy. Perhaps, but that doesn't mean she has to suck up to the executioner.

---

[Photo Credit: NSERC]

A Letter from the President of CIHR

 

There's a crisis in science funding in Canada. The budgets of the main granting councils are being cut by $148 million over the next three years.

Laura Frost is the President of the Canadian Society of Biochemistry, Molecular & Cellular Biology (CSBMCB). She recently wrote to Prime Minister Harper to draw his attention to the seriousness of this decision.

Dear Mr. Harper;

On behalf of the Canadian Society of Biochemistry, Molecular & Cellular Biology (CSBMCB), I would like to congratulate the Government of Canada for a number of measures in the 2009 Budget, including the more than $1.5 billion investment in science and technology. The CSBMCB is pleased to see in the budget $750 million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) in support of research infrastructure and $87.5 million for the temporary expansion of the Canada Graduate Scholarship Program as well as continued funding for Genome Canada.

However, the lack of additional new investment in Canada’s granting agencies Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), NSERC and SSHRC is of great concern. Without increased investments in operating funds to support doing research, Canada could lose the competitive edge that previous investments in students, scientists and infrastructure have achieved. Operating monies are the funds that allow our gifted students and other trainees to become competitive at an international level and leaders in the next generation of scientists. Without these crucial increases, fewer labs will be funded and fewer students, scholarships notwithstanding, will be trained in the diverse areas of science that define “interdisciplinary research”. Targeted research is one essential component of the funding process, but as a country, we need a strong background in basic research that feeds into technological development and planning for crises ranging from SARS to mountain pine beetles to environmental concerns in the oil sands.

Over the past several years, many leaders and national and provincial partners dedicated to advancing research in Canada have advocated for increased investments in discovery research through the granting councils to match the growth in infrastructure and research capacity through the CFI and the Canada Research Chairs Program respectively. Failure to align these funding streams at the federal level has created a serious imbalance in the supply and demand in health research and research generally, which will, in turn, increasingly affect our capacity to retain and recruit the best scientists.

The biotechnology sector is also suffering from a lack of investment capital. This industry serves as a primary receptor for much of Canadian research related to health, agriculture, manufacturing, environmental and resource-based emerging technologies. Fifty percent of Canadian companies indicate they will be closing or selling off their operations to international partners by the end of this year. Canada cannot afford to ignore the competitive environment other nationals will be adopting to help grow and stimulate their knowledge-based industries.

The economic impact of Canadian health research is significant. On an annual basis our industry generates $12 billion in economic activity and provides employment and training for over 10,000 people across Canada. The sector also supports more than 20,000 scientists, clinical investigators and other researchers and staff.

Canada has many of the right ingredients to succeed in the knowledge-based economy including a highly skilled workforce and some of the best research facilities in the world. The CSBMCB looks forward to working with the Government of Canada in laying the foundation for a stronger and more sustainable economy of the future in which research and development in the health and life sciences are a top national priority.

Sincerely,



Laura Frost, Ph.D.
President, CSBMCB

CSBMCB has also published a letter from the President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Read this letter ... comments below.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF CIHR

Following the January 26, 2009 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada tabled its 2009 Budget, Canada’s Economic Action Plan in the House of Commons on January 27. The Budget outlined the Government’s economic stimulus package designed to bolster the Canadian economy and provide support for Canadians as the world’s economies work through the current economic crisis. The Budget 2009 speech and documents can be found on the Finance Canada website at: http://www.fin.gc.ca.

Research plays a key role in improving the health of Canadians. That’s why, over the past three years, the Government has increased the annual base budget of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) by over $142 million. This year CIHR plans to spend approximately $917 million on peer-reviewed health research projects conducted at universities, hospitals and research centres across Canada.

I have summarized below the details of Budget 2009 as it relates to CIHR.

First, CIHR will receive $35M over the next three years for Canada Graduate Scholarships (CGS) to fund an additional 200 doctoral scholarships, valued at $35, 000 each per year for three years beginning in 2009-10, and an additional 400 master’s scholarships, valued at $17, 500 each for one year, in both 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Second, Budget 2009 also provided the results of the Government’s Strategic Review process. CIHR was one of the 21 Government Departments and Agencies that undertook a Strategic Review of its programs and services. The objective of the process was to assess whether programs:

• are effective and efficient;

• meet the priorities of Canadians; and

• are aligned with federal responsibilities.

The results of the process are as follows:

• CIHR funding of the Open Team Grant program will be discontinued. To respect current commitments, reductions will be phased in over the next three years with $1.5M in 2009-10, $5.5M in 2010-11, and $27.6M in 2011-12 and thereafter; and

• Funding for the Intellectual Property Mobilization (IPM) program will be discontinued. To respect CIHR’s current commitments, the annual reductions of $2M will commence in 2010-11 and end in 2011-12.

In addition, funding under the Indirect Costs Program will be reduced in proportion to reductions in the above direct cost programs. The relative ratio of funding for the direct and indirect costs will therefore remain essentially the same as prior to the Strategic Review.

In summary, taking into account the new investments for the Canada Graduate Scholarships and the strategic reallocations, CIHR’s budget for 2009-10 will increase by $12.5M, bringing our total budget to $978.8M.


Sincerely,



Alain Beaudet, MD, PhD
President
Canadian Institutes of Health Research

This is unacceptable. It sounds like a letter from a political lackey and not from someone who is really concerned about scientific research in Canada. Why can't Alain Beaudet mention that he is fighting on behalf of all Canadian scientists to increase CIHR funding in order to better support basic research? Is it because he isn't fighting?

We need someone who will stand up and oppose government underfunding, not someone who will make excuses for it. If the current President does not have the confidence of the scientists who are supported by CIHR then perhaps we should find a new CIHR President who does have their confidence.

---

The Value of Science in Canada

 
Canadian Girl Postdoc in America writes about The Value of Science in Canada. Here's a teaser ... read it all.

Stephen Harper (the Prime Minister of Canada) is, as far as I'm concerned, has an underlying ideology that he weasels into every policy. While I may be a granola eating birkie-wearing tree hugger, Harper is a neo-con who lives and dies by the market. He won't listen to hard-done-by stories of the 'little people' and his natural inclination is toward rigid conservative policies. Stephen Harper's closest advisor (Tom Flanagan) believes in the teachings of Leo Strauss, a man who taught that people "are too stupid to make informed decisions about their political affairs. Elite philosophers must decide on affairs of state for us." Strauss also believed that the ruling elite should hide the truth from the public -- Strauss's "noble lie" -- in order to protect the citizens from themselves.

The comparison between Harper and Bush is stark and explains why Canadian scientists are fearful about the future of science.

---

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic: Chicks with brains]

When Chiropractors Get Angry ....

 
Gary Goodyear is Canada's Minister of State (Science and Technology). He's also a chiropractor.

Last week he met with two representatives of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). CAUT has a long history of lobbying in favor of increased funding for university research. Apparently the meeting didn't go well [Researchers fear 'stagnation' under Tories].

The screaming erupted last Wednesday afternoon, just down the street from Parliament Hill, in the offices of a Conservative cabinet minister.

Two officials with Canadian Association of University Teachers sat on one side of a boardroom table and on the other sat Gary Goodyear, Minister of Science and Technology, his policy adviser Wesley Moore and a civil servant ready to take notes.

CAUT, a lobby group that represents 65,000 staff at 121 colleges and universities, had planned to raise concerns over the government's handling of research funding. But within moments, it became clear they wouldn't get very far.

“The minister was very angry,” said David Robinson, associate executive director of CAUT. “He was raising his voice and pointing his finger … He said everyone loves their [federal budget] and we said, ‘A lot of our members don't love it'… and he said, ‘That's because you're lying to them, misleading them.'”

The talks, Mr. Robinson said, went from bad to worse. In 15 years on the job, he “never had a meeting like that.”

Mr. Goodyear agrees. “I, too, have never had a meeting like that. It was a unique experience and one I don't care to repeat.”

I don't know what could possibly have gone wrong. Perhaps it was something that Mr. Goodyear said?

Mr. Goodyear said he has met university presidents, deans of research, and researchers themselves and believes government critics are few. “You're going to see that one person who didn't get what they wanted,” he said. But “eight out of 10 folks I talk to get it … they are very positive.”

Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., said the government has been steadily investing in science and technology since 2006, with a new emphasis on commercialization and that it has designed an overall strategy to ensure Canada remains a world leader in research.

“We have done everything right,” he said.

Or maybe it had something to with the change in science policy since the Conservatives took over in 2006?

After years of double-digit budget increases in the early 2000s, government contributions in recent years to NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR have barely kept pace with inflation – and last year they underwent a government-mandated strategic review to reduce their spending.

So while the Barack Obama administration in Washington has added $10-billion (U.S.) to finance basic research in the United States, the three agencies that back basic research in Canada must cut spending by $148-million over the next three years.

CIHR, for example, Canada's main funding body for medical research, has to find about $35-million in savings by 2012, and $28-million of that is by eliminating a program that provided grants to research teams.

In any case, it ended badly ...

CAUT, however, is less confident. It was the position of researchers fretting for the future the lobby group hoped to represent at last week's meeting with Mr. Goodyear.

They had barely begun to state their case, Mr. Robinson said, when the minister accused them of twisting facts.

When CAUT staff said the Conservatives have a spotty record on science and noted they abolished the office of the national science adviser, Mr. Robinson said, the minister's assistant screamed at them to shut up.

“Then the minister said, ‘You've burned all your bridges with us!' and they stormed out.

“In all the meetings I've been in like this, I've never been shouted at and told to shut up,” Mr. Robinson said. The civil servant who escorted them to the elevator suggested it would not even be a good idea to return to the minister's office to collect their coats, he said. Instead, she retrieved them.

This meeting is more extreme than most but it confirms an impression I had when I used to go up to Ottawa for those lobbying weeks in March. When dealing with the Conservatives, the only workable strategy is to vote them out of office as quickly as possible.

Trying to reason with them doesn't work.

---