Budget for science, or at least one kind of science
Comments (4)
Friday, February 29, 2008 | 04:26 PM ETBy quirks
By Bob McDonald, host of the CBC science radio program Quirks & Quarks.
The 2008 Federal budget includes more money for science, which is a good thing, but the cash comes with a catch. The scientists have to do what the government wants, not pursue the basic questions of the universe.
The new budget is mostly aimed at supporting the auto industry, manufacturing, fisheries, genomics and nuclear power. In other words, applied science that contributes to the economy.
Of course, we need clean cars and new products. Applied science is aimed at developing new technologies, new industries, jobs and perhaps a boost to the economy. If it all happens within the four-year tenure of a politician, everyone looks good.
But here’s a word of caution about this approach to funding research; it may not actually produce anything, and basic science can end up on the back burner.
When the government invests in new technologies, industry doesn’t have to adopt them, and often resists doing it if extra costs are involved. Take clean cars for example. Scientists have been working for decades on emission controls, fuel efficiency, fuel cells and alternative ways of making wheels go around. But until regulations are in place that force automakers to use these technologies, they often don’t make it to the road. Just look at the “2008 Canadian Car of the Year”, chosen by the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada.
It’s the Audi R-8.
So The Car of the Year for Canada is a 420 horsepower, 250 km/hr, two-seat sports car. Now there’s a clean, efficient car for you, perfect for a country with speed limits of 100km/hr and snow deep enough to ground this low rider on the first turn. It seems the automakers and the journalists who write about them still think it’s 1969.
So if the government is going to invest in new technologies, then regulations, penalties and tax incentives must also be in place to help those technologies get out of the laboratories and really make a difference.
Here’s the other danger of focusing on applied science: it doesn’t really develop anything new; it just improves on what’s already out there. If you are looking for real innovation, look to basic science - the kind that, at first glance, doesn’t seem to have any practical application.
Searching for neutrinos that come from space or investigating the sex lives of insects might seem like a waste of taxpayers’ money in practical terms, but historically, real discoveries have come from asking basic questions. We wouldn’t have computers if Michael Faraday hadn’t asked questions about the relationship between electricity and magnetism, for example.
There’s a lot about the universe we don’t know, and Canada has always been a world leader in the pursuit of fundamental science.
So thank you, Mr. Flaherty, for supporting industry-based science. But please don’t forget the people who seek knowledge just for the sake of knowing it.
- Bob McDonald
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
This discussion is now Open. Submit your Comment.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
Post a Comment
Quirks & Quarks »
About the program
Quirks & Quarks is heard on Saturdays on CBC Radio One from 12:06–1pm in Canada, and also by satellite. The show is hosted by Bob McDonald.
Recent Posts
- 'New Government' adds insult to former National Science Advisor injury
- quirks
- Friday, March 7, 2008
- Budget for science, or at least one kind of science
- quirks
- Friday, February 29, 2008
- Red moon rising
- quirks
- Monday, February 25, 2008
- The real Auto Show
- quirks
- Friday, February 22, 2008
- Blasting the spy satellite: The secret’s out
- quirks
- Tuesday, February 19, 2008
- Subscribe to this blog
Recent Comments
- JP Owens: There is actually a difference between "applie...
- Budget for science, or at least one kind of science
- I love technology -- its what I do, working in advanced m...
- Budget for science, or at least one kind of science
- The idea of 'targetting' funding to specific discoveries ...
- Budget for science, or at least one kind of science
- Bob, you make a huge mistake in the expanded report. You...
- Budget for science, or at least one kind of science
Archives
- March 2008
- (1 postings)
- February 2008
- (5 postings)
- January 2008
- (3 postings)
- December 2007
- (4 postings)
- November 2007
- (4 postings)
- October 2007
- (5 postings)
- September 2007
- (4 postings)
- June 2007
- (3 postings)
- May 2007
- (4 postings)
- April 2007
- (1 postings)
- March 2007
- (5 postings)
- February 2007
- (2 postings)
- January 2007
- (2 postings)
- December 2006
- (3 postings)
- November 2006
- (9 postings)
- October 2006
- (8 postings)
- September 2006
- (15 postings)
- August 2006
- (3 postings)
Comments (4)
Des Emery
Bob, you make a huge mistake in the expanded report. You actually thank Flaherty for funding applied science! Don't you realize that any, and I mean 'any' approval only encourages Tory/Reformers in their unwanted behaviour. They react to the slightest sign of approval with unbecoming enthusiasm. In that respect they're much like dogs, you know, always needing firm discipline or they start thinking they can get away with murder.
I'm afraid that, to this government, immediate economic concerns always trump the acquisition of new science (from the Latin word, 'scio' meaning 'to know'). They would rather put more money into the internal combustion engine than into investigating what new ideas can be generated in Canadian brains.
Posted February 29, 2008 11:53 PM
John Bladen
Alberta
The idea of 'targetting' funding to specific discoveries is troubling. Certainly there are benefits to apportioning tax dollars based on "need". However, where science is concerned, such an approach often brings no result at all. Restricted funding clearly suggests that the politicians apportioning the funding know what discoveries are possible and/or likely. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Many of our greatest scientific discoveries as a society were made either by those doing non-targetted research, or by those who were actually 'looking for something else'. By confining science to defined areas where discoveries are "approved" or "deemed necessary", we move ever nearer to those closed, restricted societies we decry.
Posted March 10, 2008 04:14 PM
JP Owens
Edmonton
I love technology -- its what I do, working in advanced media production. I have an office in downtown Edmonton (Chinatown) and right now, as I'm typing, there is a first-nation couple sitting in the alley two floors down from my window, sharing a bottle of something or other. I could send a picture... in High Definition! Where am I going with this? The office that I operate would be pure science fiction to them, just like the Audi R8 would be, too. The difference? The Audi, as admirable an achievement as it is, is insignificantly different from a Transit bus in that it is merely a conveyance... but for its extravagance. A little like HD and everything else that exceeds "the basics".
There's no such thing as "Basic Science", and "Other Science"... it's all basic. But government meddling is nothing new -- they think they can spend their way to stimulating the economy with deliberate industrial development? History has shown that without fail, all the significant discoveries have been literally accidental. When Rumsfeld said that 'we don't know what we don't know', he was actually correct in a strange way. The actuaries running the government want answers that can go in a ledger. Its a sad, mean world that isn't interested in the questions.
Posted March 10, 2008 06:53 PM
M Bergstrom
JP Owens: There is actually a difference between "applied" and "basic" science (BTW, I like "basic" rather than "pure", as it doesn't imply that applied science is impure). Just as there is a difference between theoretical and experimental. Applied science (think engineering) applies existing theories (EM, Quantum, cryptology) to make a new product that has a use or fills a need. Pure or basic science develops the theories that will be used (or not) down the road by engineers. How many engineers would there be w/o the development of the calculus, or how many computers (or light bulbs) would there be w/o Maxwell and the others who spent their time developing EM theory. I doubt that Tesla would have even been able to develop the AC motor w/o the theory laid down beforehand.
And pure science, unlike applied or practical science, is rarely accidental. The applications and end results may be unforeseen, but it is only by purposeful desire to understand the unknown that the theory is laid down, as a path for others.
Posted March 11, 2008 11:55 AM