The Politics of Science

3

An article in iPolitics caught my eye today. It echoes some of the sentiments I’ve argued with friends and colleagues, sentiments that sometimes cause people to look at me in surprise given my background. It’s been declared that there is a War on Science (great book by the way), media assaults us with stories on The Death of Evidence. I’m not totally disagreeing with these statements, but I like to think that maybe it’s just a shift, and I hope that shift leans in the correct direction as time slips forward.

Science is a fundamental necessity of forward movement in society. Sadly, there are those who would twist it to personal agendas.

Many large corporations will cherry pick information in order to present their products in the best possible light, and bury the dangers if possible.

On the other side of the coin are many environmental groups who would mine, cherry pick, and twist the same information to their own end and claim that they are above reproach for doing so because of what they stand for.

Both industry and ENGO’s are necessary for balance, but I abhor the tactics both use and will happily find fault on both sides. That never sits well with friends in business who are out for economic benefit for self and society, and it really sits badly with friends I have who are basically religious fanatics for their environmental causes.

As someone who existed in a world of science and research for many years, as someone who spent countless hours reading basic scientific papers, sitting through presentations providing insights into fundamental biological questions, I try to avoid getting caught up in the “causes” on either side. I did consider myself an applied biologist though, so I always wanted to see a bigger purpose to what I was working on. When you spend a great deal of time killing animals to pursue basic questions, I found it necessary to have a bigger reason to do so. While I could compartmentalize much of what I did, I couldn’t completely ignore the fact that I was taking the lives of many aquatic creatures to further my own curiosity.

But that’s what science is all about, really, at the basic level. The people who pursue scientific questions are curious. They ask non-stop questions about the world around them.

“Why?”

Science is about asking a question, forming a hypothesis, and then attempting to disprove the null (the opposite of the hypothesis). It’s important to point out that science can never, ever, “prove” anything. It can only disprove. Absolute proof is impossible since future tools and techniques can allow us to re-visit a question and the results of an experimental investigation designed to address that question – and these new methods may lead to new results based on more sensitivity or specificity.

But fundamentally, “Why” is why they do what they do.

Most of them anyway.

The eco-warriors and the big-business science labs actually are more alike than either would like to admit. They both approach science in the same manner. As I said earlier, they both cherry pick and mine existing data to try to prove their point using the findings of others and twist those data to suit their position.

But worse than this, both sides, when engaged in their own research, start at an answer that they want to prove, and then they work backwards, design an experiment that will support their answer, use the tools and techniques that will allow them to perform that experiment so the results will be what they are hoping for, and then generate the question appropriately such that all the information seems to flow seamlessly in the direction they initially wanted. Anything that doesn’t fit the desired model is thrown out or discounted.

If their results don’t work out the way they hoped, they start over and redesign the experiment to fit the answer they seek. But here’s the thing, what those outside of science don’t realize is that a negative result is still a result, and if the science was performed adequately, it’s a worthwhile result.

All science builds a foundation on which other researchers can contribute. And all science provides knowledge that can be used not only to formulate new questions, but to add information to the investigations of others.

It’s why I’ve thought, for a very long time, that science really should be predominantly based in the realm of academia. That’s not to say that academic research is above reproach, certainly there are many examples of bias and manipulation in the ivory tower of academic research. But in the Colleges and Universities or the world, there is more freedom to share information and collaborate on projects. There is a greater capacity for following an unexpected research avenue that presents itself when a fresh and eager graduate student comes on the scene. It is an opportunity to promote scientific ethics and teach bias avoidance. And I also believe that scientists should be taught to better communicate their findings to the public. Maybe the public would also learn, through greater research communication, that science is fluid, open to interpretation, and not always an answer.

Good science generates more questions than it ever answers.  But, without those questions, without an honest dialogue, we can’t move forward as an informed society.

I personally know many, many, excellent government researchers. And I think their research is world-class. But they aren’t always allowed to get their message across for the very simple reason that they work for the government, and that causes a greater degree of restriction on them. The media floods us with headlines screaming of government muzzling and feeds us stories of researchers being censored.

Yes, scientific communication is very controlled under this government, and that’s not really great for science, which fundamentally should be shared to the wider community rather than hoarded.

But it’s not really surprising either. And I’m honestly not sure it would be much different under another government party.

If you worked for a company, and openly criticized that same company; if you went on record publicly and presented information that undermined the position of the company, would you be surprised if you were reprimanded or fired? If you were a scientist researching a topic and you publicly presented information contrary to the policy of the Company, the public would assume that you were speaking for the Company if you stood there wearing a company logo.

Same thing for the government.

While it’s easy to say that there are those of us that can see past a logo and see that an individual is presenting a personal opinion, the majority of society is now too lazy to fully digest information and lives by snippets and headlines, forming opinions based on much less than the full body of information. Thus information can easily become twisted and misused – both intentionally and not.

A government has a platform, the public voted for it during an election. (Side rant: Unfortunately many people still choose to not vote and then they whine and complain about the outcome. I have no sympathy for those who do nothing. If you aren’t willing to vote, don’t complain about what you have in front of you. End of rant.) It’s akin to the mission statement of a company. Government is business too. And to have employees of a business undermining the platform/mission statement, is generally frowned upon.

So I say take it out of the government’s hands.

That said, the government has a responsibility to the people of this country to move our society forward, not backwards, and therefore has a responsibility to fund research – in a hands off manner. There will always be a degree of control, there is no getting past that. NSERC, NRC, and other funding pots will always have “themes” that will see greater weight for funding competitions. But researchers can access these and at a University there is a phenomenal amount of other research that can piggy-back off of such projects. While the grant may be provided to fund project “A”, graduate students and post-doctoral fellows can tag additional basic and applied experiments on to the same projects and the monies are magnified many-fold while providing research and learning opportunities for future scientists. Collaborative efforts can be generated that wouldn’t be possible otherwise.

So am I opposed to the current level of control of communication of scientific findings and interpretation?

Sure, of course I am, I’d be a liar if I said I thought it was great.

But do I think it’s the end of the world as we know it?

No, of course not. I hope that it will drive funds to where they can be used to work on the same questions but with a greater arms-length and more freedom for appropriate communication.

The recent loss of a world-class government environmental researcher eventually translated to his landing on his feet at the Vancouver Aquarium where he will be free to continue his research and fully voice his findings. (http://www.vanaqua.org/media/media-releases/2014/international-scientist-dr-peter-ross-to-lead-new-ocean-pollution-science-program-at-vancouver-aquarium) This is a success story borne out of the current shift in government. So it’s not all bad.

Re-Post: The Harper approach to science is holding us back

The Harper approach to science is holding us back

iPolitics.ca, Feb 25. 2014 8:57 pm

By Dak T. de Kerckhove

Margaret Thatcher famously said that “the greatest economic benefits of scientific research have always resulted from advances in fundamental knowledge rather than the search for specific applications.” She wasn’t alone in recognizing this, even among conservatives: In the early 2000s Newt Gingrich advocated doubling federal investments in basic scientific research, something which ultimately was achieved under a Republican-led house in 2010.

The Harper Conservatives don’t appear to be cut from the same cloth. Over the last seven years, our federal government has directed funding away from basic science toward industry-led research programs, and clashed publicly with the scientific community on issues ranging from censorship to laboratory closures. In 2014, Industry Canada’s innovation strategy, which was opened to public consultation, promised more of the same approach.

Industry Canada has recognized that — despite an outstanding pool of available Canadian scientists — businesses are not successfully directing that talent toward industrial innovation. This problem and the solutions proposed within the public consultation document are generally the same ones identified seven years ago in the previous science strategy. Considering the government implemented sweeping policy changes over that period, perhaps their approach to innovation just isn’t working.

In the global context, it certainly appears that Canada was better positioned for innovation before the arrival of the Harper government. The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Reports measure a country’s ability to provide a fertile ground for innovation. Canada was in the top ten of most categories in 2001 — and in third place in the overall measure of ‘Growth Competitive Index’. In the past few years we’ve slid out of the top ten and, in specific categories like ‘Quality of Scientific Research Institutions’, have seen a freefall from fourth place in 2008 to 16th in 2013. To make matters worse, last year we were ranked 27th for our ‘Capacity for Innovation’. By international standards, we’re increasingly failing to foster that fertile environment for innovation.

One might blame our science and innovation performance on sluggish federal spending following the economic crisis. When measured as a percentage of the GDP, Canada certainly hasn’t kept pace with many of the other 34 OECD countries since 2007. Still, the billions of dollars in federal R&D funding remains a large investment — so the problem must lie with where we’re spending that money.

Since 2007 the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) has eliminated key supports for basic research, such as the Major Resources Support and Research Tools and Instruments grants, and instead funds business through grants like the Industrial Research Assistance Program. It also spent money on assisting companies in finding graduate students for internships, rather than providing basic scholarships for young scientists to set up research programs. The success rate of the NSERC Post-Doctoral Fellowships program plummeted from over 30 per cent in the early 2000s to less than 10 per cent in 2013.

Betting on business as the primary driver of innovation puts the cart before the horse. Many of the great innovations of the 20th and 21st century happened in the pursuit of basic science. Think of nuclear energy, high-field superconductors, the Internet, the structure of DNA and — most recently — the production of graphene. Only in the later stages of development were these discoveries harnessed by industry. While encouraging research and development within existing industries and creating networks between private businesses and public scientific institutes does have great value, it’s less likely to result in great innovations. Which is why China has doubled the number of its universities over the last ten years to develop the creative capacity to spark new industries, rather than add to existing ones.

We need stronger investment in basic science to spur innovation in Canada. Even the modest increases in higher education spending announced in the 2014 federal budget amounted to less over the next two years than what was allocated to direct investment in automotive innovation. The approximately $50 million allocated to the tri-council funding agencies barely covers inflation, and the $1.5 billion in new grants over the next ten years is still ephemeral money (and won’t even be spent this year).

Improve business-led R&D, by all means — but not at the expense of fundamental research in universities and government laboratories. If we don’t lead in basic science, we will continue to slip backwards on innovation.

Dak T. de Kerckhove is a PhD student at the University of Toronto and a fisheries biologist.