What is the purpose of university research? Should it be driven by intellectual curiosity or focused on satisfying immediate national needs? American higher education has long grappled with those questions, and today it is a global debate. Academics worldwide are becoming more vocal about their concerns.
Many agree that a proper balance can be struck between research that has an immediate benefit to the economy and research that opens the door for future discoveries. But for now, the balance may be off. In the following collection of articles, read more about three countries where scholars are taking steps to fight what they believe is a troubling focus on short-term, economic gains: Canada, Germany, and Britain.
Canada’s National Research Council has long been the country’s premier scientific institution, with its researchers helping to produce such inventions as the pacemaker and the robotic arm used on the American space shuttle. But last year its mission changed.
The Canadian government announced a transformation of the 98-year-old agency, once focused largely on basic research, into a one-stop “concierge service” to bolster historically weak technological innovation by industry and generate high-quality jobs.
The move has set off a row over the future of Canada’s capacity to carry out fundamental research, with university scientists and academic organizations uncharacteristically vocal about the government’s blunt preference to harness research for commercial needs.
“We are not sure the government appreciates the role that basic research plays,” says Kenneth Ragan, a McGill University physicist and president of the Canadian Association of Physicists. “The real question is: How does it view not-directed, nonindustrial, curiosity-driven blue-sky research? I worry the view is that it is irrelevant at best and that in many cases they actually dislike it.”
The remodeling of the research council is one in a series of policy changes that have generated fierce pushback by Canadian academe in recent years. The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is also under fire for closing research libraries, shutting down research facilities like the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area, and restricting when government scientists can speak publicly about their work.
Last year the Canadian Association of University Teachers began a national campaign, “Get Science Right,” with town-hall meetings across the country to mobilize public opposition to the policies. Scientists have even taken to the streets of several Canadian cities in protest.
While the transformation of the National Research Council has been criticized, the government as well as some science-policy analysts say better connecting businesses with research is an important step for Canada.
Having examined models in other countries, the National Research Council chose to streamline its operations to act as “the pivot between the two worlds” of industry and academics, with an eye toward new products and innovations, says Charles Drouin, a spokesman for the council. He says the agency has not moved away from support for fundamental research, but wants to focus such efforts better. “There is basic research, but it is directed as opposed to undirected as you would find it in universities.”
Another battleground for the future of basic research has been the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, a federal granting agency that serves as the first stop for support of fundamental research by Canadian scientists.
In 2011-12, the latest year for which data are available, the council’s “discovery” grants for fundamental research accounted for 38.4 percent of its budget, down from 50.1 percent in 2001-2. Its “innovation” grants, which encourage the transfer of university-developed technology to industry, rose to 31.4 percent in 2011-12, up from 25.3 percent a decade earlier. (The council also directs part of its roughly $1-billion budget to postdoctoral fellowships and other awards for young researchers.)
“The government has invested proportionately more on the innovation side, where it was seen that we had more challenges,” says Pierre J. Charest, vice president for research grants and scholarships at the government agency. He notes that the council is “on track” to double the number of scientists forming partnerships with industry.
Mr. Charest says criticism about a smaller percentage of funds for discovery grants misses a larger point—that the budget has grown over the past decade to almost $325-million (U.S. dollars, unadjusted for inflation) in 2012-13. However, much of that increase comes from a special supplement for a select group of researchers to explore potentially transformative concepts.
One who has felt the pinch is Norman Hüner, an internationally recognized plant biochemist and physiologist at the University of Western Ontario who holds a prestigious Canada Research Chair in environmental-stress biology. A longtime recipient of discovery grants, he and his research collaborators are exploring a potential breakthrough in the use of photosynthesis to trick plants to grow in suboptimal conditions—relevant research in Mr. Hüner’s view, given concerns about climate change.
But in 2012, after applying for a new grant to continue his research, the professor received $50,000 a year for five years—a sharp drop from the previous award of $132,000 a year over five years. “I was shocked, absolutely,” he recalls. “I am disillusioned beyond words.”
The cut has led to the departure of some of the senior scientists who work in his lab. And except for one new postdoctoral student with her own funds, Mr. Hüner is not replenishing his stable of young researchers. At 67, Mr. Hüner now plans to retire several years ahead of schedule.
Pushing on a String
Even those involved in commercialization question the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council’s new approach.
“If you have ideas that are going to lead to commercialization opportunities, you should absolutely get seed-stage funding,” says James E. Colliander, a mathematician at the University of Toronto. He acknowledges that funding for applied research is “crucially important,” but says he is “not sure that the principal vehicle for funding basic research should be the path to get those dollars.” Mr. Colliander has received several major discovery grants and is also involved in an effort to bring to market a web application for large-scale academic-examination assessment.
Beyond the changes in the two councils, some wonder if Canadian industry is prepared to step up its role in research innovation. In Canada’s largely foreign-owned industrial sector, research is often carried out at corporate headquarters outside the country, while home-grown businesses lack the appetite or budget.
Some liken the federal strategy to pushing on a string.
The current policy appears to be trying to “push” technology from universities to industry, but what is needed to increase the level of innovation is for industry to get better at investing in new ideas and well-qualified researchers, says Arthur Carty, a former science adviser to the prime minister and a former head of the National Research Council. “Companies have to have innovation in their philosophical strategies, and they don’t have it,” adds Mr. Carty, now executive director of the University of Waterloo’s Institute for Nanotechnology.
Uncertainty over the response of industry is a common refrain even among those who see merit in the federal strategy.
“Canada has had most of its eggs in the basic-research basket for quite a long time,” observes Richard W. Hawkins, a Canada Research Chair in science, technology, and innovation policy at the University of Calgary. He has also spent years outside Canada as an adviser to governments and international agencies on innovation policy.
“Governments want to invest in science and technology because they think it will lead to growth and innovation,” he says. “Governments all over the world have the same rationale.”
What’s missing in the Canadian context, he argues, is a deep understanding of how sectors of the economy could exploit knowledge to diversify and create new industries. “In Canada we know relatively less about our situation than most of our competitor countries,” he says.
But some senior scientists warn of risks to Canada’s higher-education system if pure, scholarly research is perceived as unimportant.
“One of the major contradictions of the Conservative government at the moment is that no one in Canada will question the need to have the best universities in the world,” says Daniel E. Guitton, a professor of neuroscience at McGill University. “Now how do you get them? You’re not going to get them by having people focus on an industry-related problem.”
Science-policy analysts say it is too early to judge the impact of the government’s current strategy. But on one point there is little debate. “To be honest, I’ve not seen this level of advocacy from the scientific community before,” says Paul Dufour, a fellow at the University of Ottawa’s Institute for Science, Society, and Policy. “That’s new in this country, and I think that’s a healthy thing.”
