Ontario steps up to save the Experimental Lakes Area

This morning the Ontario government announced it will provide financial support to ensure the Environmental lakes Area is sustained for "long term operations".

The Experimental Lakes Area, which had continuous data on 58 protected lakes since the 60s, was one of several research funds cut in the federal budgets of 2012 (previously on this blog). The Area was previously funded through the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Globe & Mail reports the exact nature of the funding commitment remains unclear.

CBC story is here, quoting Ontario Premier Wynne saying: " I don't believe that either provincially, regionally, or nationally and internationally we can afford to let it go." (Hear hear!)

Learn more about the Experimental Lakes Area  on their site.

Enjoy Rick Mercer's rant about the original cuts here. "In the world of science, they are rock stars! ... [ELA scientists] up there living in tents and shacks, with their big bushy bears, eating mung beans out of mason jars, trying to figure out what different chemicals will do to our drinking water...". :)

Science for profit: Conservatives target the National Research Council | rabble.ca

More on the budget, the national research council and funding in the 2012 budget for graduate students, in this editorial from Rabble:

Science for profit: Conservatives target the National Research Council | rabble.ca

Canadian Medical Association weighs in on CIHR and other research cuts

The devil is in the details, and a great summary of concerns about research funding has been provided in today's Canadian Medical Association journal.

I have quoted from the article below any sections directly related to resaerch funding not reported in my previous post on the budget, but I htink the entire article is worth a read for those interested in details of how budget policies relate to health and health research.

CIHR cuts are a shift in funds to "targetted research"

 And in several cases, a departmental or agency cut is offset by an injection of new funds for a targeted purpose, so the effect is often a wash. For example, while the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) budget will be reduced $15 million in 2012/13 as a result of the spending review exercise, the granting council received $15 million per year to support its Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html and www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.109-4161). 

Cuts to NSERC, SSHRC, are also a shift of funds to increased support for "industry-academic research partnership initiatives"

As with CIHR, the spending review exercise resulted in a $15 million cut to the budget of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) in 2012/13, and an additional $15 million in the following fiscal year. The budget of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) was cut $7 million for 2012/13 and another $7 million the following year. But the 2012/13 cuts are offset by the provision of $37 million annually ($15 million to CIHR, $15 million to NSERC and $7 million to SSHRC) in “support of industry-academic research partnership initiatives.” The staggered cuts could result in a serious hit to granting councils base budgets in 2013/14 but Treasury Board and Finance officials, who speak on condition of anonymity during budget background briefings, indicated that the expectations are that the bolstered funding for industry-academic partnerships will be repeated in next year’s federal budget, so that council budgets will continue to remain at roughly $1 billion apiece for CIHR and NSERC, and about $651 million for SSHRC. “The net effect is that overall council funding will be unchanged,” one Finance official stressed. That’s based, though on the presumption of an increase for 2013/14. About 25% of the medical and natural sciences budgets, and 45% of the social sciences budget, represents monies administered by the councils on behalf of the government for special initiatives, such as one to cover the indirect costs of research.

and if that sank your spirits, you may be cheered to know there is new funding for depression research:

$5.2 million will be provided to support the creation of a Canadian Depression Research and Intervention Network by the Mood Disorders Society of Canada and the Mental Health Commission of Canada. It will connect “over 80 of Canada’s brightest depression researchers from across the country. Particular focus will be on suicide prevention and identifying and treating post-traumatic stress disorder. Funding provided in the budget will serve as a catalyst for private and public sector investment.”

Devils in the details on the controversial change of NRC to a more industry-related body.

The National Research Council will continue to be restructured as a toolbox for industry, receiving an additional $67 million this year to support its “refocusing on business-led, industry-relevant research.” The council will also see its Industrial Research Assistance Program contributions budget, which provides extramural grants to businesses to develop products, double to $220 million per year. The combined increases will hike the National Research Council’s overall budget to $700.5 million in 2012/13.

and finally: 

 $12 million per year will be set aside to make the Business-Led Networks of Centres of Excellence program “permanent.” In the original competition to create such networks, the four winners included the Quebec Consortium for Drug Discovery-CQDM (Nuns’ Island, Quebec), which aimed to “accelerate the drug discovery process and to develop safer and more effective drugs.”

Federal Budget & Grad students

Updated: links to responses to budget for research/graduate study added below

The budget was touted for many cuts (and the demise of the penny!), but there are some additional resources for research, when business related, plus small increases for graduate students.

You can see the (more) detailed budget plan section on "Supporting Entrepreneurs, Innovators and World-Class Research"
Or visit the budget main page here, which includes briefs, press releases, the full budget plan, and even a video of the Minister looking really serious (kids in the hall fans may think he is about to crush your head).

The following is the quick version of the funding increases related to university research:

"Support for Research, Education and Training
The Government is committed to providing additional resources to support advanced research at universities and other leading research institutions. Economic Action Plan 2012 proposes:

• $37 million annually starting in 2012–13 to the granting councils to enhance their support for industry-academic research partnerships.

• $60 million for Genome Canada to launch a new applied research competition in the area of human health, and to sustain the Science and Technology Centres until 2014–15.

• $6.5 million over three years for a research project at McMaster University to evaluate team-based approaches to health care delivery.

• $17 million over two years to further advance the development of alternatives to existing isotope production technologies.

• $10 million over two years to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research to link Canadians to global research networks.

• $500 million over five years, starting in 2014–15, to the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support advanced research infrastructure.

• $40 million over two years to support CANARIE’s operation of Canada’s ultra-high speed research network.

• $23 million over two years to Natural Resources Canada to enhance satellite data reception capacity."

  
  
  [How did McMaster do it? (shakes fist)! Develops theory.]
  
  There are also some items of particular grad student interest:
  
  
  

  "Economic Action Plan 2012 proposes $14 million over two years to double the Industrial Research and Development Internship program.
  The Industrial Research and Development Internship program currently helps 1,000 graduate students undertake hands-on research in innovative Canadian firms each year. This initiative provides host firms with access to cutting-edge research and skills, while providing students with valuable applied research experience in a private sector setting. To double the resources of the Industrial Research and Development Internship program, Economic Action Plan 2012 proposes $14 million over two years. This new funding will be administered by Mitacs, an advanced research organization with a proven track record of helping businesses solve problems through access to graduate students."

  
  and,
  
  

  "This new approach will promote business innovation through improved support for high-growth companies, research collaborations, procurement opportunities, applied research and risk financing. This will provide a solid foundation on which Canada’s globally competitive businesses can build by making the investments in innovation required to create high-value jobs and long-term economic growth. In particular, the Government will:... Support private and public research collaboration through internships for graduate students and funding for business-led research and development.  ..."

 I hope all that extra money means these internships will be paid.

UPDATE: Responses to budget:

CIHR provided some excellent summaries of how reasearch money is shifting (my summary here)

CBC Power Politics longer interview on innovation and the budget (video)

Liberal finance critic, MP Scott Bryson, described the research funding as a "shell game" on CBC's As it happens March 29, 2012. He said funds that once went to innovation in the private sector was being shifted to the public sector, which was being cut, thus leaving the private sector worse served in terms of supporting research. NDP critic also on, doesn't speak to the research funding. Check out the CBC As It Happens budget interviews (before there is 11% less of it).

NDP tried to get a jump start calling for the  National Research Council to be saved the day before the budget was launched.

The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC)  applauded the research funding  and the Canadian Association of Graduate Studies also called the budget a positive development (PDF) but the press release "noted the details are still sketchy".

Meanwhile, the Canadian Association of University Teachers said the budget "compromises research, hinders prosperity", saying tying research to commercial goals will hinder, not help, innovation.

And from the student groups: CASA says thumbs down [pdf], saying it shifts money from granting councils to industry related research, and the CFS love it. Just kidding, they don't like it either.

UBC likes it. So does UVIC, but we have less to say, and refer back to the AUCC statement.

Mixed reaction from the business community according to the Financial Post

A few days pre-budget, the Globe and Mail had some more in depth coverage on how r&d  funding for industry works now, and proposed changes with the budget.

Also of interest:

CCPA alternative federal budget

Federal budget consultations: making the case for grad students

The federal government is hosting budget consultations, and have a simple online form where citizens can submit their comments.


These consultations are a simple way to let the federal government know what you think of federal funding for graduate study and the role of graduate study in the economy.

 

Not sure what to say? Check out the following information sources... they spark a lot of ideas about the role of graduate school, and the impact it has on our society.

 

The Canadian Association for Graduate Studies has this letter to the Federal Government on how to better support graduate studies and Canada's low (2nd last by OECD ranking) investment in graduate education:

 

1. Investing in the granting councils
2. Investing in international grad students in Canada
3. Invest in innovative skills training for grad students and post docs
4. Invest in post docs.

The budget consultation is a venue for supporting this ideas.

 

Perhaps you are interested in your field of research and its role in the economy...

The OECD has all manner of statistics on the impact of education, research and development and how Canada's funding ranks compared to other OECD nations.

 

OECD study on education funding. (Tertiary education is post secondary education, but doesn't break down between a bachelors, masters and PhD).

The OECD database is searchable on many subjects, so you can search for data on our priorities in science and engineering, health, environment, business, education, and doctoral graduates, depending on your interest.

 

For example:

 

In 2011 Canada is below average in OECD for doctoral graduate rates (but is close to average at PhDs awarded to women: 44% of Canadian PhDs - OECD average is 46% -- Canada's rate hasn't changed since 2009, but OECD has gone from 43% to 46% average between 2009 and 2011):

 

 

Direct funding of Research and Development (2011 stats) includes this amazing chart, which shows how those R&D dollars are spent - are they going to defence or universities or health?

 

 

Here is Canada (2009) vs OECD breakdown (2008) by % of direct Research and Development spending:

  

• Defence: Canada 3.2% OECD 31.8%
• Health & Environment: Canada 22.7% OECD: 17.5%
• Economic Development: Canada 25.8% OECD 15%
• General University Funds: Canada 33.3% OECD 16.1%
• Non-oriented: Canada 7.7% OECD 11.3%
• Other Canada 7.3% OECD 8.4%

... but remember that Canada spends less than the OECD average (govt appropriations as % of GDP) on research and development:

 

Spending on R&D as % of GDP (2010): Canada .61% OECD average .75%

 

 

Science & Tech funding boost

CBC is reporting that Industry Canada has announced funds for 310 Canada Research Chairs. See the story here.

There is no write up on the Industry Canada site, although there is a (not very exciting) media advisory.

The push seems to be in particular areas and with at least some focus on commercial/economic outcomes for the research...

Between this and BC's announcement that 2011 is the Year of Science, looks like the coming year might be science-tastic. (Too bad BC is simultaneously is reducing involvement of independent researchers and increasing Big Pharma's input in the BC drug approvals process... read about it in the Globe and Mail or listen to the CBC Victoria radio interview (MP3)).

SSHRC campaign presents 17,000 signatures to the house of commons

I just received this email from the campaign to stop the changes to SSHRC. Congratulations to the organizers of this campaign.

-----------------

Hello, Thank you for being one of more than 17,000 people who have signed the written petition in opposition to the government's earmarking of Canada Graduate Scholarship funding within SSHRC.
Once we started our campaign against this earmarking, petitions flooded our office from every province and territory in Canada, as well as the United States, Britain, Germany and Japan.
It was an incredible response.
In this last legislative session, I had the honour of presenting this petition in the House of Commons on your behalf. Together, we have made a powerful statement in opposition to the government’s attack on the social sciences and humanities and its overall disregard for the fundamental principle of academic freedom.

(Featured: Arati Sharma and Rick Theis of CASA, Hon. Niki Ashton, and from CFS Graham Cox, Federico Carvajal and Gaétan-Philippe Beaulière)
We must continue to work together. The battle continues in the face of ongoing actions and interference of the Minister of Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear. In advance of the next budget, we will continue to make it clear that not only is discipline-related earmarking unacceptable but that social sciences and humanities research in Canada is vital. The contributions made by students, researchers, academics and people working in the social sciences and humanities are integral to moving our country forward.
Thank you again for joining me, and the thousands of others who have spoken out in opposition to the actions of this Government.
I invite you to watch the embedded video link of my presentation to the House: https://mail.uvic.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=856195e385fa4f9aaab6b65e26669bdb&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2fwatch%3fv%3d-ms6o_LlUc0
I look forward to staying in touch!
Niki

Grad students respond to recent business only grad funding

The letter, to Prime Minister Harper, was quoted in its entirety on rabble.ca:

The Federal Budget presented on January 27, 2009 contains a paragraph (page 106-7) laying out temporary increases in Graduate Scholarship Funding. The increases are welcome. However, the last sentence says that SSHRC scholarships "will be focused on business-related degrees."

This provision must be eliminated. It makes no sense to earmark scholarships for one discipline, rather than another. We need to allow students in all disciplines to further their learning opportunities, and excluding the majority from consideration for scholarships, limits our choices as a society that relies on new knowledge to prepare a better future.

Granting councils rely on peer review, and accord scholarships on the basis of merit, not on the basis of field of study. The main estimates are examined on a departmental basis by the appropriate standing committee, as set out in Article 81.(4) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

When SSHRC spending comes forward to be discussed, we urge parliamentarians to remove the condition that scholarships be focused on business-related degrees. Should this earmark provision not be withdrawn, the 22 Council members of the SSHRC should ignore the earmark, or resign in protest. The SSHRC president should undertake a public campaign to explain why earmarking is not an acceptable practice in graduate student funding.

We urge all professional associations to write the leaders of the opposition parties urging them to maintain the independence of funding for graduate students in all disciplines by having the House of Commons pronounce itself against earmarking scholarship money by discipline.

Setting aside for a time the controversial -- did business-related programs, such as financial economics and business administration produce the people who put us in the economic mess we are now in -- all University faculty, graduate students and administrators should make it clear to members of parliament that the directing of funds entrusted to granting councils is not the role of the government of the day.

Yours truly,

Frances Abele, Carleton University,
Greg Albo, York University,
Jessica Alina-Pisano, University of Ottawa,
Caroline Andrew, University of Ottawa,
Feyzi Baban, Trent University,
Manfred Bienefeld, Carleton University,
Neil Bradford, Huron University College,
Andrew Biro, Acadia University,
Paul Leduc Browne, Universite du Quebec en Outaouais,
Doris Buss, Carleton University,
Duncan Cameron, Simon Fraser University,
Bill Carroll, University of Victoria,
John Paul C. Catungal, University of Toronto,
Ken Collier, Athabasca University,
Amrita Daniere, University of Toronto,
Serge Denis, University of Ottawa,
Matthew Farish, University of Toronto,
Christina Gabriel, Carleton University,
Emily Gilbert, University of Toronto,
Kanishka Goonewardena, University of Toronto,
Sneja Gunew, University of British Columbia,
Matt James, University of Victoria,
Dimitrios Karmis, University of Ottawa,
Roger Keil, York University,
Fuyuki Kurasawa, York University,
Charmain Levy, Universite du Quebec en Outaouais,
Fiona Mackenzie, Carleton University,
Stephen McBride, Simon Fraser University,
Rianne Mahon, Carleton University,
Dominique Masson, University of Ottawa,
Margie Mendell, Concordia University,
Lisa Mills, Carleton University,
Amina Mire, Carleton University,
Douglas Moggach, University of Ottawa,
Joshua Mostow, University of British Columbia,
Carlos Novas, Carleton University,
Leo Panitch, York University,
Martin Papillon, University of Ottawa,
Kate Parizeau, University of Toronto,
William Ramp, University of Lethbridge,
Katharine N. Rankin, University of Toronto,
Francois Rocher, University of Ottawa,
Cristina Rojas, Carleton University,
Stephanie Ross, York University,
Blair Rutherford, Carleton University,
John S. Saul, York University,
Mario Seccareccia, University of Ottawa,
Byron Sheldrick, University of Guelph,
John Shields, Ryerson University,
Amy Siciliano, University of Toronto,
Janet Siltanen, Carleton University,
Louis Simard, University of Ottawa,
Martin Skowronski, University of Toronto,
Malinda S. Smith, University of Alberta,
Donald Swartz, Carleton University,
Sunera Thobani, University of British Columbia,
Sarah Todd, Carleton University,
Wiliam Walters, Carleton University,
Rosemary Warskett, Carleton University,
Mel Watkins, Simon Fraser University.

2008 Federal Budget through a grad student lense

Here are some 2008 Federal Budget key points for graduate students:

Canadian Graduate Scholarship: Creation of 500 $50,000 scholarships for top PhD students--both Canadian and international
250 $6,000 scholarships to help Canadian graduate students study abroad for one semester
$80 million increase for granting agencies

For the profs, but these funds often support grad student funding: 20 new Canada Research Chairs worth $10 mill over 7 years each
$15 million for the indirect costs of research. Also--project specific funding including the synchrotron at U Saskatchewan. And the Genome project. I love the synchrotron, although I don't know what it does, it sounds cool!!!

For the undergrads: a new grants program replaces the Millenium Scholarship Program with income contingent grants that are more predictable.

<----- This is the synchrotron.




This article from The Fulcrum is a good summary of key criticisms of the new budget's agenda on post-secondary education.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers has issued a press release in reaction to the buget announcement (below) which details concerns about targetting research money.

----
Attention News/Education Editors:
Federal budget: little on offer for post-secondary education

OTTAWA, Feb. 26 /CNW Telbec/ - The Canadian Association of University
Teachers (CAUT) says today's budget lacks any coherent vision for
post-secondary education and research.
CAUT executive director Jim Turk says that aside from the creation of the
Canada Student Grant Program, the budget ignores the most pressing needs of
universities and colleges.
"The new grant program announced today is a step in the right direction,
but by simply consolidating money from existing programs it means there's no
real new support for students in the current year."
Turk emphasizes that the government is providing no new money for
post-secondary education through the Canada Social Transfer, funding that
would have allowed universities and colleges to make education more affordable
and ensure that staff and students have access to labs, library resources and
other facilities.
The budget announces the creation of a small program for 500 Canadian and
international students. Named after Georges Vanier, the Canada Graduate
Scholarships will provide up to $50,000 a year for no more than three years.
"While we welcome the new program, we can't ignore the fact that there is
otherwise no increase in funding for Canada's hundreds of thousands of
undergraduate students in this budget," Turk says. "The budget fails to deal
with the real problem: the need for more core funding."
The budget proposes a modest increase in federal funding for the indirect
costs of university research. There are also small increases for the federal
granting agencies, but the new money is heavily targeted to priority areas set
by the government.
"We appreciate the new research funding, but we're extremely concerned
that the federal government is increasingly targeting research funding rather
than allowing the priorities to be established by the research community,"
Turk says.

CAUT is the national voice of more than 57,000 academic and general staff
in universities and colleges across the country.