Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Cancel Anytime
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](,dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

Prime Minister Stephen Harper looks over at Da Mao, one of two Panda bears as it peers out of a container after arriving by FedEx transport jet in Toronto. The two bears, on loan from China, will spend time at both the Toronto and Calgary Zoos.

Moe Doiron/The Globe and Mail

Politics Insider delivers premium analysis and access to Canada's policymakers and politicians. Visit the Politics Insider homepage for insight available only to subscribers.

Last week, the following resolution, sponsored by New Democrat Kennedy Stewart, was put forward in the House of Commons:

"That, in the opinion of the House: (a) public science, basic research and the free and open exchange of scientific information are essential to evidence-based policy-making; (b) federal government scientists must be enabled to discuss openly their findings with their colleagues and the public; and (c) the federal government should maintain support for its basic scientific capacity across Canada, including immediately extending funding, until a new operator is found, to the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area Research Facility to pursue its unique research program."

Story continues below advertisement

The motion was defeated 157 to 137, with every Conservative MP voting Nay, and every member of the NDP, Liberals and Bloc Québécois voting Yea.

Much has been made of this vote, with critics arguing that it proves conclusively that the government of Stephen Harper is anti-science. After all, how can you oppose the "free and open exchange of scientific information" and support for "basic scientific capacity"?

But the reality is that the resolution, once you get past the mom-and-apple-pie preamble, simply demands that funding be restored to the Experimental Lakes Area Research Facility. The government had just announced the end of that funding so, naturally, Conservative MPs opposed the motion.

Killing that program is short-sighted and counter-productive but it does not necessarily make the government anti-science.

It is fair to say, however, that the Harper government has a strained, conflicted relationship with science, one that is as muddled as the NDP motion.

Federal funding of science and technology has risen steadily since the Conservatives took office, with annual investments now close to $11-billion, despite cutbacks in many other areas of federal spending. The opposition argues that investments have actually fallen but this becomes a semantic argument about what constitutes science and technology funding. According to Statistics Canada, it's up.

Even last week's modest budget (or economic action plan as it now appears to be called) featured some pretty significant investments in science, including $165-million for Genome Canada, $141-million for the National Research Council and an additional $37-million for a trio of scientific granting agencies like the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. (CIHR alone has a budget in excess of $1-billion.)

Story continues below advertisement

At the same time, the federal government has taken a lot of flak for its muzzling of scientists. This has little to do with science and everything to do with an obsessive desire to control the message to the point where it seems the only federal employee allowed to speak freely is quirky meteorologist David Phillips.

The government, seemingly, also has a disdain for evidence, as exemplified by attempts to shut down Insite, the supervised injection site in Vancouver, and the shutting down of research freshwater contaminants.

Again, every government embraces and rejects evidence based on its ideology and policies. Closing down programs that don't fit a government's world view is hardly new. What distinguishes the Harper government is they tend to be a little less subtle and more ham-fisted. So be it.

Yes, we want evidence-informed public policies but you cannot take the politics entirely out of public policy. Nor should you try.

What really needs to be examined though is not just how much money the federal government invests in science, or how it allows its employees to speak of research, but how and where the investments are made.

The most valid critique of the Harper government's approach is that it overly concerned in the commercial outcomes of science. This issue is well-explored in an article by Globe science reporter Ivan Seminiuk.

Story continues below advertisement

The point here is that while the government's view that "science powers commerce" is valid it should not put all its eggs in one basket.

Government cannot merely invest in scientific enterprise that will deliver the goods in the short term; if it wants innovation and payoffs over the long term, there has to be as much, if not more investment in basis research and curiosity-based research.

The Harper government has demonstrated a desire to benefit from the promise of science and a willingness to invest in science. But, at the same time, it has shown a profound misunderstanding of the process of scientific research, of the need for openness, risk-taking and, yes, even failure.

If it wants better bang for the buck then, paradoxically, it needs to make less specific demands. To get credit for its investments in science, it needs to back off a bit on the control front, and seek more equilibrium.

André Picard is The Globe and Mail's health columnist.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies