-
3
- #1
rconnor
Mechanical
- Sep 4, 2009
- 556
Although slightly old news for Canadians, I’m unsure of its exposure level outside of Canada and I feel it’s one of the most important stories surrounding the question “Where is Canadian Science Going in the Next 5 Years” and it certainly extends outside the frozen tundra of the North.
The National Research Council of Canada (NRC), Canada’s leading organization for scientific research and development, has announced that it will change its philosophy to become a tool box for industry driven R&D and will focus on “commercially viable” research. John McDougall, the president of the NRC said "Innovation is not valuable unless it has commercial value”. Gary Goodyear, the Canadian Minister of State for Science and Technology, also stated “There is [sic] only two reasons why we do science and technology. First is to create knowledge ... second is to use that knowledge for social and economic benefit. Unfortunately, all too often the knowledge gained is opportunity lost.” In a nutshell, curiosity-driven science out, corporate R&D in (and note that this corporate R&D will be partially funded by the government and using government labs/experts).
For me, this results in the union of embarrassment and anger, as someone in the field of science and technology and as a Canadian citizen. Although not a unique occurrence in Harper’s war on science, it is, perhaps, the most abhorrent.
Before I open the floor to see what my fellow engineers think of this decision, I’ll add a few bullet points on why I feel so strongly about this:
[ul]
[li]How can anyone determine what research will become “commercially viable”[/li]
[li]No one thought Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism would be “commercially viable” when it came out but look what it led to. Quantum Theory is one of the most counter-intuitive, most abstract concepts around but without it modern day electronics wouldn’t be anything like what they are today.[/li]
[li]If it’s “commercially viable”, why does the government need to subsidize this research for private corporations? If a corporation is too short-sighted to see the value in “commercially viable” R&D, then shouldn’t we allow free-market Darwinism to let it die?[/li]
[li] - This is why I can’t wrap my head around why even the Conservatives would think this is a good idea[/li]
[li]It discourages companies to promote “in house experts” as they can use NRC resources. In fact it encourages companies to abandon in house R&D programs. Why pay your own experts/lab when you can use NRC’s?[/li]
[li] - Shouldn’t promoting “free-loaders” be an anti-Conservative ideology? (or is it ok when it’s a corporate “free-loader” but bad when it's a citizen "free-loader")[/li]
[li]Disconnect between projects with “societal benefit” and “commercial value”. These things, although not mutually exclusive, are certainly not one in the same goal. This difference is exacerbated when projects are industry driven. Industry has no obligation to produce a “societal benefit”, in fact it is legally responsible to operate in the best interest of its shareholders over that of society or even its employees[/li]
[li]Possibly a less pragmatic, more romanticized, argument but one which I hold close to my chest: curiosity driven science is a humanizing endeavour. It provides purpose, place and connectivity. It’s the only enterprise (aside from pure survival/reproduction) that spans across cultures and time. It is our greatest achievement as a species and one which we can all take pride in. To replace curiosity driven science with economic viability is a great perversion of humanity; it makes me feel empty.[/li]
[/ul]What do you think? Brilliant decision that will bolster the economy or short-sighted invasion of science by corporate lackey governments? (or something slightly less hyperbolically melodramatic)
The National Research Council of Canada (NRC), Canada’s leading organization for scientific research and development, has announced that it will change its philosophy to become a tool box for industry driven R&D and will focus on “commercially viable” research. John McDougall, the president of the NRC said "Innovation is not valuable unless it has commercial value”. Gary Goodyear, the Canadian Minister of State for Science and Technology, also stated “There is [sic] only two reasons why we do science and technology. First is to create knowledge ... second is to use that knowledge for social and economic benefit. Unfortunately, all too often the knowledge gained is opportunity lost.” In a nutshell, curiosity-driven science out, corporate R&D in (and note that this corporate R&D will be partially funded by the government and using government labs/experts).
For me, this results in the union of embarrassment and anger, as someone in the field of science and technology and as a Canadian citizen. Although not a unique occurrence in Harper’s war on science, it is, perhaps, the most abhorrent.
Before I open the floor to see what my fellow engineers think of this decision, I’ll add a few bullet points on why I feel so strongly about this:
[ul]
[li]How can anyone determine what research will become “commercially viable”[/li]
[li]No one thought Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism would be “commercially viable” when it came out but look what it led to. Quantum Theory is one of the most counter-intuitive, most abstract concepts around but without it modern day electronics wouldn’t be anything like what they are today.[/li]
[li]If it’s “commercially viable”, why does the government need to subsidize this research for private corporations? If a corporation is too short-sighted to see the value in “commercially viable” R&D, then shouldn’t we allow free-market Darwinism to let it die?[/li]
[li] - This is why I can’t wrap my head around why even the Conservatives would think this is a good idea[/li]
[li]It discourages companies to promote “in house experts” as they can use NRC resources. In fact it encourages companies to abandon in house R&D programs. Why pay your own experts/lab when you can use NRC’s?[/li]
[li] - Shouldn’t promoting “free-loaders” be an anti-Conservative ideology? (or is it ok when it’s a corporate “free-loader” but bad when it's a citizen "free-loader")[/li]
[li]Disconnect between projects with “societal benefit” and “commercial value”. These things, although not mutually exclusive, are certainly not one in the same goal. This difference is exacerbated when projects are industry driven. Industry has no obligation to produce a “societal benefit”, in fact it is legally responsible to operate in the best interest of its shareholders over that of society or even its employees[/li]
[li]Possibly a less pragmatic, more romanticized, argument but one which I hold close to my chest: curiosity driven science is a humanizing endeavour. It provides purpose, place and connectivity. It’s the only enterprise (aside from pure survival/reproduction) that spans across cultures and time. It is our greatest achievement as a species and one which we can all take pride in. To replace curiosity driven science with economic viability is a great perversion of humanity; it makes me feel empty.[/li]
[/ul]What do you think? Brilliant decision that will bolster the economy or short-sighted invasion of science by corporate lackey governments? (or something slightly less hyperbolically melodramatic)
