mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (06/22/85)
References:
In this morning's Globe and Mail, Eric Nielsen is reported as saying
he is looking for any places he can reduce Federal support to Science.
In opposition, the Conservatives recognized and spoke much about the
need for increased research if Canada's economy was to improve over
the long term. I spoke to one Conservative MP (Belleville area), who
was most concerned over the low levels of science support provided
by the Liberals. He said even then that a major Conservative
thrust was to improve science funding.
The place of research as the chief engine of the
economy has not changed. All that has changed is the name of the
party in power. Conservatives seem to have forgotten what they "deeply"
believed, now they have the opportunity to really do something for
the Canadian economy. Or was it all just rhetoric -- the Liberals
are underfunding science, so we must argue for more funding .... Oh,
now we are in power, we don't have to argue against Liberal policies
any more; we can just do the same, only worse.?
A long time ago, there was an article in Nature showing a high lagged
correlation between spending on research and economic growth. The growth
rate had a coefficient of variation of about 0.5 with the spending on
research 5 years previously (i.e. about half of everything that affects
the economy is prior research spending, and fiscal policy, tax measures,
and so forth can affect only the other half). Subsequent articles in
various general science journals (e.g. Science, Nature) have continued
support this in principle (I don't read Economics journals, so I don't know
whether they address the question).
If the Conservatives care about the economy, why are they keen to cut
spending on science?
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmtrobinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (06/24/85)
In article <1589@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >If the Conservatives care about the economy, why are they keen to cut >spending on science? Probably has something to do with the priorities of the Canadian *people*. All hell breaks loose when the PCs talk about scrapping universality, but how much of a peep do you hear from anyone when the PCs backtrack on their commitment to double that percentage of the GNP spent on R&D? Not much. The attitude seems to be that it's more important for "bank presidents" to get their baby bonus cheques every month than it is for the country to cease being a high-tech branch plant. An interesting contrast exists in California where the Dukemejian (sp?) administration (Republican) slashed expenditures in their first year in office (82), yet in a subsequent year increased spending in the University of California system by quite a bit (30%, I believe). I can only conclude that either the Governor finally realized that California did not get to its present state of economic strength by belittling the value of of a well funded university system, or that enough Californians put a sufficient amount of pressure on the administration to make it change its views. If the average Canadian valued higher education as much as the average Californian appears to there would be no problem. But then again why should this mythical average person feel that way? -The U.S. (esp. California) offers much better opportunities for the typical high-tech person than does this country. The result being that the more career minded person is drawn south of the 49th. Since it precisely these people who make the biggest contributions, Canada comes out the loser in that it has less than it should to show for the time and money that it invested in these people. (Note that this is *not* an attack on said people) -Thanks to the Liberals' idiotic R&D tax policy (affectionately known as the "quick flip") the average person is going to have a bad taste in his mouth for quite a while to come whenever he thinks about government financed R&D. And by the law of guilt by association the universities will also shoulder some of this burden. -Higher education is no longer the route to a well paying job; one can achieve that with a lot less time and effort by joining a strong union. (In fact, if one is into money *and* power tripping, then one can join CUPW and participate in holding the country to ransom every few years :-) -Up to a little while ago Canada was able to earn a comfortable living without a high-tech industry to speak of. I suspect that this has created the mistaken perception among many that this country will in time be able to regain its former economic strength *without* investing in higher education and R&D. -Universities don't do as much as they should in justifying their existence to the average person. -Soaring tuition costs will result in less qualified (but richer) post- secondary students. This will result in deteriorating standards and the (accurate) perception that university education is a privilege to be enjoyed only by the rich. J.B. Robinson P.S. I didn't come right out and say it but yes, I do think that higher education and R&D are worthy recipients of increased spending. The reason is that expenditures of this type represent an *investment*. The present Federal Gov't, like its predecessor, seems intent on continuing funding of all kinds of ridiculous programs (examples given on request) which not only do *not* represent investments in the future, but are also downright counter-productive. They do this because that's where the votes are and until *Canadians* change their priorities that's the type of short-sighted governing that we can expect in the foreseeable future.
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (06/25/85)
>In article <1589@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >If the Conservatives care about the economy, why are they keen to cut >spending on science? > One scenario that is possible, and probably not very palatable to a large number of net readers, is that the money is going to be reallocated to SDI research. The federal government has only a certain amount of money to spend on research. If the feds were to accept the US's invitation to participate in SDI it would have to get the money from someplace and it seems like a logical place would be current science funding. Jim Robinson writes: >-Universities don't do as much as they should in justifying their existence > to the average person. I agree with this one hundred percent. When I meet friends my age who didn't go to University they always wonder what I could be doing at University for so long. They think it is nothing but a big party at their (taxpayer's) expense. One thing that Universities must stop doing is adopting a condescending attitude towards the general population, the opinions of the general population shouldn't automatically be rejected out of hand just because the person isn't from academia. Far too often I get the impression that academics are saying "I am right and you are wrong because I am an academic and you are not." If I have this impression as part of the academic community just imagine what the "common" folk think. >They do this because that's where the votes >are and until *Canadians* change their priorities that's the type of >short-sighted governing that we can expect in the foreseeable future. The only way Canadians will change their priorities is if *YOU and I* convince them that their investment in research is worth it. We must justify research, show them our accomplishments and make them proud of what Canadian scientists have done. (Little bit of flag waving here.) We can't afford to say "fund my research because research is good" we have to convice them that it is. Donald Acton
fred@mnetor.UUCP (06/25/85)
In article <1118@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >In article <1589@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >>If the Conservatives care about the economy, why are they keen to cut >>spending on science? > >Probably has something to do with the priorities of the Canadian *people*. >All hell breaks loose when the PCs talk about scrapping universality, >but how much of a peep do you hear from anyone when the PCs backtrack on >their commitment to double that percentage of the GNP spent on R&D? Not >much. The attitude seems to be that it's more important for "bank presidents" >to get their baby bonus cheques every month than it is for the country to >cease being a high-tech branch plant. > I am a member of the PCs and having said that, let me say that I don't necessarily back *everything* that they do. I feel that this is the best way I can have an effect on what takes place in politics. To the best of my recollection; during the campaign of last fall the figures for R&D in Canada were given for the previous year as being about half that of the US when compared with the GNP, (that's Gross National Product). The PCs promised that this would be rectified if they were elected. *NOTE that this does not mean that the government would start throwing money at researchers. The figures for R&D expenditures include private industry! In the budget that came out recently, Finance minister Wilson announced a rebate for R&D expenditures which seems directed at stimulating just such activity. Whether it will be successful remains to be seen, but it should be encouraging to companies in a position to do research. Cheers, Fred Williams