Hey there, time traveller!

This article was published 22/12/2014 (2100 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Opinion

As official announcements go, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recent unveiling of the government's science, technology and innovation strategy took a page right out of the communications-management playbook.

Stand in front of a nice backdrop, re-brand old policy as new, re-announce funding that had already been earmarked in the budget and make the announcement late on a Friday afternoon so any dissenting voices are shut out of the weekend news cycle.

It was classic politics, but poor public policy. Behind the political spin and the photo op, the event once again highlighted this government's dismal approach to science.

The "new" strategy is in fact a rehash of previous policy, rolled out in Harper's 2007 science and tech plan.

Seven years later, the overriding focus remains on targeting support for scientific research that first and foremost shows promise of generating new products for the marketplace. No change in direction, just more of the same, and certainly no evaluation of just how effective the government's strategy has been.

By all measures, the government's strategy has been a flop. The latest data from Statistics Canada show business research and development decreased by 17.7 per cent between 2006 and 2013. While businesses in OECD countries spend an average of 1.63 per cent of GDP on R&D, in Canada that figure is just 0.88 per cent, down from 1.11 per cent in 2006. Add to this the cuts in government funding for research, and the numbers speak for themselves: We need a new direction for science in this country.

At the heart of Canada's weak scientific performance over the past decade is the government's continuing failure to recognize the importance of investments in basic research. The government in fact has reduced funding for basic science, seemingly oblivious to the fact major scientific discoveries are most often curiosity-led, rather than goal-driven or market-led. Basic scientific research challenges accepted thinking, leading to fundamental paradigm shifts and unexpected innovations. From the discovery of X-rays and nylon, to superconductivity and medical imaging, history teaches us true scientific progress is driven by basic research without specific outcomes or applications in mind.

Unfortunately, this is another lesson the Conservative government continues to ignore. The Canada First Research Excellence Fund, which Harper highlighted in his science and tech announcement, is the latest example of this. The fund, when fully in operation, will provide $150 million per year over 10 years for university-based research projects that align with the government's priority areas and show promise of creating "economic advantages for Canada." Final decisions about what projects will be funded won't be made by scientists or academics alone, but by private sector and government representatives, as well.

In this respect, the fund is another misguided step by a government that seems to misunderstand science. The history of scientific progress has shown the economic and social benefits of research can only be fully realized if governments recognize good research does not emerge from political diktats or narrow industrial demands. The value of scientific studies and projects is best assessed by impartial experts through peer review, not by politicians or special interests. But rather than allow the scientific community to determine what research is most worth funding, the government is trying to pick research winners and losers.

And the focus of the fund on business innovation and the commercialization of research, with the emphasis on requiring university-based researchers to collaborate with industrial partners, can undermine the integrity of scientific research. In a review conducted by the Canadian Association of University Teachers of 12 major collaboration agreements involving universities, industry and governments in Canada, we found seven agreements provided no specific protection for academic freedom, and only one required the disclosure of conflicts of interest.

The government's continuing science and tech strategy carries the risk of stifling, rather than stimulating, the creativity needed for scientific discovery and real innovation promoting economic and social development.

For today's scientists, asking fundamental scientific questions means they are unlikely to be heard in the corporate boardrooms or corridors of government power. For that, all Canadians will pay a price as our scientific performance wanes.

David Robinson is the executive director of the

Canadian Association of University Teachers.