Tory science policies vs. Tory scandals: the battle for the limelight

The Canadian twitter world has been split in the last couple of days. You have of course the Duffy-Brazeau-Harb-Wallen-Wright-Perrin saga filling the trend boxes. But then, you have the story of the Tories’ problem with science, be it defunding, muzzling, disbelieving, doubting, preventing, delegitimizing etc. The latter must have restarted with the incredible announcement about the National Research Council (NRC), presented as “Canada sells out science” in Slate, and as “Failure doesn’t come cheap” in Maclean’s. What went unnoticed was the fact that the restructuring turned out to be totally orthogonal to the recommendations of the Jenkins report about the NRC. Then came the latest Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) report, which showed that Canada’s expenditure on research and development has fallen from 16th out of 41 comparable countries in the year Stephen Harper became prime minister, to 23rd in 2011. Paul Wells seems to be racking up hits on his Maclean’s article,  “Stephen Harper and the knowledge economy: perfect strangers.”  But the story of the last 48 hours has been John Dupuis’s chronology of what he calls, “The Canadian war on science” and much more. So far tweeted 780 times, you can read it there if you also want to see John’s analysis of what’s behind this war. I will only list below his compendium of key events. There is also this story, and this, and this. And by the way, Gary Goodyear made an announcement yesterday about the Harper government’s support for basic research. It turned out that he was simply re-announcing the results of NSERC’s discovery grant competition. Finally, and in the context of the current search for a new UBC President, it may be opportune for this issue to be at the forefront of the Search Committee’s questions for all potential candidates. It is high time to engage those who aspire to be leaders of Canada’s post-secondary institutions in this debate. Continue reading

Posted in R&D Policy | Leave a comment

The faculty at UBC-Vancouver also want in!

It can get quite lonely for faculty representatives on the Board of Governors. I have written before about the latent disparity in status between the elected and the appointed. But there is also the occasional dreadful feeling: what if no one cares? What if your colleagues on the faculty do not find issues of land development, faculty housing, collective bargaining, flexible learning, faculty industrial engagement, district energy, and the international college, among others, worth thinking about, let alone dealing with? I was therefore comforted to see that eight faculty members at UBC-Vancouver have declared their candidacy in the election for the two slots available to them on the presidential search committee. Surprisingly, the faculty at UBC-Okanagan will have an equal number of representatives on that committee. Both are already known. One is an uncontested candidate for the election there. The other is one of the four Governors chosen by the MRCC to represent the Board on the search committee. Continue reading

Posted in Board of Governors | Leave a comment

Nota Bene

I was not surprised to receive some push back on my last blog. I have also had a chance to revisit some of the issues I raised and the way they sounded. They are important, and it is certainly my responsibility as a member of the university community to bring them to the fore. Continue reading

Posted in Board of Governors | Leave a comment

How far and how much could a university administration commit its successor?

Ever since Stephen Toope announced the date of his resignation from the presidency of UBC, I and a few other members of the Board of Governors have been struggling with some tough questions. Should this administration stop, or at least slow down, its relentless pace in land development and large-scale capital projects? And if not, how far should they go in committing the incoming administration to a vision of campus they may not be willing to adopt? Continue reading

Posted in Board of Governors | Leave a comment

UBC’s search for a president: Two down but many to go

The Chancellor has just announced the official launch of the search for a new president of UBC to succeed Stephen Toope. “A Search Committee of 22 members broadly representative of the University community – faculty, staff, students and alumni – will be selected.” I was happy to see that both UBC-V and UBC-O Senates had approved the “Terms of Reference” for the search committee as proposed by the Board, in particular those pertaining to its exact composition. Indeed, the new terms contain a couple of positive changes –from past ones– that signal some progress in the continuing discussion regarding the role of the faculty in the university governance. However, many challenges remain. ->

Posted in Board of Governors | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The people who let you “matter” and those who don’t

Being singled out by the Ubyssey as one of “The people who mattered at UBC in 2012-13” brought much honour and satisfaction, but also introspection. For someone who fusses regularly about whether his latest actions mattered, the mention by the venerable students’ newspaper was more than significant. First, you think of the people who helped you “matter,” but then you remember those who go out of their way to prevent you from “mattering.” Continue reading

Posted in Board of Governors | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Tell me about El CASA

Once again, I had to perform the unpleasant annual task of writing to more than 120 colleagues and their co-applicants all over the world to inform them that their proposals to run a research workshop at the Banff International Research Station (BIRS) in 2014 were not successful. Many of these declined proposals were excellent and some of the disappointed researchers were repeat applicants. The problem? 170 applications received in 2012 (more than double the number of the 2003 competition) for the available 48 weeks of programming at BIRS. The private sector has obvious answers to such increases in customers’ demand. But what do you do if your product is research capacity, your capital is scientific credibility, and your financier is the public sector? Continue reading

Posted in Banff International Research Station | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments