Science Funding In Canada: Will The Roller Coaster Ride Ever End?

---

By Dr. John H. Hylton

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”
— Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Ok, so maybe we haven’t seen the best or the worst of times, but when it comes to science funding in Canada, and particularly funding for health research, we have certainly been on one heck of a roller coaster ride.

Earlier this decade, an unprecedented number of new health research funding vehicles were created. These included, for example, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Genome Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Research Chairs program, and Networks of Centres of Excellence. Provincial governments also stepped up with important agencies like the Michael Smith Foundation, the Heritage Fund for Medical Research and the Fonds de la recherché en santé du Quebec.

Working behind the scenes in government, there was a Chief Scientist at Health Canada, as well as a National Science Advisor to the Prime Minister. Also, many committed politicians from all parties worked to advance the cause. The stars, it seemed, were aligned, and health research was established on a firm footing.

It is not entirely clear what accounted for the success – champions, inspired leadership, good economic times, new organizational models for research, public support? Perhaps all were factors. It is also worth noting, however, that public support for health spending was high.

Perhaps, at least to an extent, health research was riding on health’s coattails!
That was then and this is now. This year, health funding has come under significant pressure and the financial crisis is leading to massive government deficits. It seems health research is now viewed as “soft;” cuts are the order of the day.

The Spring 2009 budget slashed $150 million from the three federal research granting Councils under the guise of administrative efficiencies. Twenty eight million dollars was cut from the National Research Council, and there were additional cuts to other federal science programs. Gone are the Chief Scientist and the Science Advisor. In fact, there was no explicit mention of the important role of science, technology or innovation in the economy of the future in either the throne speech or the budget. Moreover, the government served notice that over the next three years, funding levels would likely not increase and may decrease even further.

The response from the research community was predictable. Two-thousand researchers signed petitions in protest, and the likes of John Polyani, Alan Bernstein and even Preston Manning penned op-ed pieces beseeching the government to reconsider its priorities. It was a sad realization for many that, within a few short years, Canada had gone from rapid growth in public research support, to a funding plateau, to outright cuts.

Canada’s reversal comes at a time when political leaders in other countries, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, have charted quite a different course. In the US and UK support for science is a key strategy in combating the recession and promoting economic recovery. In Canada, in contrast, economic recovery seems to hinge on stimulus for “shovel ready” roads and bridges, in other words, the old economy rather than the new economy.

The US has committed $25 billion from its stimulus program to health research, whereas Canada has not allocated any funding from its stimulus program. (Not that any one would recommend temporary stimulus as an alternative to stable, long-term funding for science.) The policy environment in other countries is also shifting. For example, the Obama administration has lifted the ban on government funding for stem cell research. All this raises the prospect that we will, once again, have Canada’s best and brightest heading off for opportunities in other countries.

The data is not encouraging. Canada spends 1.9 per cent of GDP on science funding, whereas the OECD average is 2.2 per cent.

The U.S., our closest neighbor, is already higher than the average and the Obama administration has publicly committed to a 3 per cent target. Obama has appointed a highly respected Nobel laureate to lead the development of American science policy. Here, it seems, no one is in charge and science advocates are apparently thrown out of ministers’ offices!

What do we do now? Increasing public support for health research requires systematic and on-going efforts to overcome the vagaries of government financial and political cycles. Unless support is at a high level, there can be no hope of ever getting off the roller coaster.

At present, health research spending in Canada is, at most, a modest $3 billion. When considered as a percentage of the $180 billion healthcare budget, research funding represents less than 2 per cent.

Knowledge intensive industries often spend 25 per cent or more of their budgets on R & D! Rather than going forward, when adjusted for inflation, Canada is returning to funding levels of a decade ago. This picture is dire, indeed.

Now is the time to start building more support for a robust and effective R & D system in Canada. Such as system should bring together and orchestrate infrastructure, talent, capital, partnerships, markets and a supportive policy environment. The stakes are high, with the potential of tremendous social and economic benefits for Canada. Only by increasing awareness and support for research will we be able to ride out the next financial crisis or “flavour of the day” – and hopefully not on a roller coaster!

Dr. John H. Hylton spent 25 years as a healthcare CEO, including responsibility for the Council for Health Research in Canada (now Research Canada) and the International Regulome Consortium. He now consults and speaks regularly on strategy, leadership, governance and organizational performance.

To read John Hylton's suggestions on what the research community can and should do to contribute to establishing research policy and funding on a solid foundation visit
www.bioscienceworld.ca/hyltonopinionpiece