How government funds science and how it treats the
information that scientists produce says much about the direction a society is
taking and the vision that the government has for that society. Here are six
questions that an engineer and researcher named Vallen Rezazadeh has been
asking the candidates about science and technology. In response, I offer the
best suggested answers that I can come up with.
1.
What actions do you think the federal government should take to accelerate
economic diversification in Canada?
A diversification strategy should emphasize (1)
making strategic investments in infrastructure; (2) ensuring the availability
of high quality labour (by investing in education and training, enhancing the
quality of life, and improving the structure of opportunity for First Nations
and immigrants); and (3) the encouragement of growth clusters through the
funding of pure research at universities and the creation of generally
hospitable environments for business.
2.
Would you support measures such as Public-Private Partnerships and tax
breaks to entice hi-tech companies to establish operations in Canada?
As a general
theoretical presumption, no. As a pragmatic response to what our competitors
are doing, sometimes a qualified yes. Much of the research on P3s confirms that
all too often government simply replaces an up-front capital expenditure with a
series of recurring payments under a lease agreement that ends up costing even
more. In return, private investor is too often shielded from competition. As for tax breaks, if they are too targeted
or discriminatory, they have economic effects that are not unlike those of
business subsidies (which are supposed to be an economic no-no). But where such
policies (1) are generally being promoted in our competitors' markets; and (2)
there are no practical alternatives in terms of either direct public provision
or regular private contracting , and (3) proposed projects have been vetted for
moral hazard, they may be the best option.
3.
What is your opinion on recent changes to the structure and mandate of the
National Research Council of Canada by the Harper government?
I hate them. They are anti-science. Shifting the NRC
away from funding pure science to supporting industry is ideological
policy-making in the worst sense. It is also bad economics. The first role of
government, economically speaking, is to supply those public goods that are
under-supplied by the market--to do what markets cannot. Pure research is such a public good.
4.
As an MP, would you push for increased funding for the National Research
Council of Canada?
Yes. I would look at what the world leaders in
science are doing at the national level and look to at least match them, as
part of our overall societal fitness and competitiveness. But that increase in
funding is not as important as un-tying the funding from the ideological yoke
of the Conservatives' pro-business
agenda, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.
5.
As an MP, would you push for increased funding for the Canadian Space Agency?
Yes. Canada spends less than 3/10th of 1 percent on
its civil space program. Several nations with smaller GDPs spend more as a
percentage than Canada does.
6. As an MP, would you push for increased
funding for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada?
Yes. In this
envelope there is a little more room for "applied " research and for
the funding of partnerships with business, and for the promotion of centres of
excellence in science and engineering across the country. But otherwise, what I said about the National
Research Council applies to NSERC as well.
Mark Crawford
teaches political science at Athabasca University.
