globeandmail.com: Researchers fear 'stagnation' under ToriesI think that this article bears notice, as it is potentially more worrisome than the issues in
my last post about Goodyear. (I should note that this came to my attention first through the blog
challenging the commonplace.)
I note the following section from the article:
[The Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, and the French Canadian Association for the Advancement of Science] warn Ottawa's stand on research will make it tough for Canada to recruit or retain top talent; that the Conservatives are investing in bricks over brain power; that they nurture commercial ventures but neglect basic research; and that funding comes with strings attached. To some, this suggests a new era of political interference is afoot in Canadian science.
This sort of shift from basic science toward industry targeted funding is not new. For example, one can see this sort of attitude in earnest in the early 1990s with the Axeworthy white/green paper on the Federal budget and human resource development. Since then, if not before, this sort of thinking has polluted not only science funding but also humanities funding.
One could be tempted here to say that we can surrender academic work that is outside of industry goals to that powerhouse to the south, the USA. (Given the size and importance of the science and academic budgets in the USA, it is probably the case that some issues simply have to be resolved there.) However, I'm not certain that one can trust the USA to produce this research. Additionally, there may be "basic" science issues that are purely Canadian.
For example, it may be important to chart the evolutionary history of sections of the Canadian wilderness (or even suburban or soon-to-be suburban areas). This may have important practical applications to fight bird flu or other diseases with an animal vector. It may also have ramifications for efforts to preserve the ecosystems there. Even the Conservative part seems to recognize that preserving some ecosystems is a public good. Additionally, preserving ecosystems can have an impact on civic geography where there is a relationship between root systems and erosion. Yet such practical applications are not guaranteed and they are not always obvious.
A large part of my dissertation is the importance of using theoretical constructions, in the form of basic or underlying theory, to provide support for the veracity of the observations made. Doing research in the underlying causes of the phenomena researched by our more practical investigations can give us a better understanding into what is going on and this can really pay off in the long run.
An example of basic research paying of is the transition from phlogiston theory to oxygen theory. The phlogiston theory of combustion really works, it really can be used to construct practical applications and to create profitable chemical reactions. However, more basic research into the underlying nature of these reactions points us to the oxygen theory of combustion, which gives us a better understanding of these profitable reactions (and indeed gives us more confidence in many of the same chemical ratios involved) and gives us a host of new tools to build investigations and practical applications. Now chemistry is perhaps so obviously practical that perhaps my point here is lost, but I still feel that we could be going along fine with merely the practical aspects of phlogiston theory. We would have a radically different and arguably poorer life, but we would still have a program of practical science even without the better research into the underlying causes.
I really have to develop this or a similar example, as the discussion of the need for basic research comes up quite a bit in the media, but it is not discussed with an example (or a memorable example).
