Scientists in every country will always argue that the funding situation in their country is not sufficient. But that is not what I am going to discuss here. The amount of money, the investment per capita or by GDP, is something that can be argued and debated endlessly. Do I think we invest enough money in science? No. But that isn’t the big funding worry I have. It’s not about the amount but where it goes and how funding decisions are made that bothers me most of all right now.

Science funding comes in several forms. First, there is infrastructure funding which can include bricks and mortar but more typically focuses on equipment and facilities. On the small scale that would include all the equipment in each person’s laboratory. On a moderate scale it includes our animal facilities for the university. On a larger scale it includes our marine stations and the experimental lakes area; places not owned by a single university but shared resources for faculty across Canada and even the world. Second, there can be scholarship and fellowship funds that pay for salaries, typically aimed at our trainees such as graduate students and post doctoral fellows. Third, are the operating grants, the bread and butter of a lab. With these funds we pay for our chemicals and consumables, pipet tips and reagents, travel to conferences, and page charges for publishing our papers.

In Canada, there are funds for larger scale infrastructure funds up to very large projects which are typically located at one university, through the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. We have had smaller funds available for equipment, the research tools and instruments grants, that a single or small group of researchers can apply for. There has also been funding for a few larger research stations. These funds are under great pressure. Indeed, with little notice, the research tools and instrument grants were going to be stopped completely. Fortunately, with a large outcry from the science community, these have been reinstated but with a lot less money. Think of this. You buy a car and use it for years but eventually, it stops working and you have to replace it. Science equipment is like that. It doesn’t last forever and it will need to be replaced. These grants make sure we have access to funds to get new equipment when we need it. But as that money disappears, we will be sitting in labs with aging equipment and no way to really replace it. How can we do science without functioning labs? I have no idea. Claims that we can fit this need into our existing operating grants is simply not true. A graduate student stipend could cost 10-15 thousand dollars a year, if they are partially supported by teaching assistantships. The research tools and instruments grants are in the few to 10s of thousands of dollars. If we divert money for expensive equipment there won’t be money for graduate student support in the grant. And we need both the students and the equipment to do science.

At the other end of the spectrum are the large research stations. These must have federal support because a single institution can’t support one on their own. Researchers from many institutions will go there for unique access to equipment, environments, and/or species. The money for these are being choked off and that is a shame. The experimental lakes area, or ELA, is a primary example of this problem. The ELA is unique in the world as an area to do whole lake experiments. The data coming out of this research station has contributed to changing policies on acid rain and nutrient inputs. It was at the ELA that Karen Kidd’s team demonstrated that low levels of estradiol can wipe out a whole fish population. The data from this place are very convincing because you can manipulate a whole lake- no more extrapolation from small tanks!! Yet, funding was unceremoniously yanked so quickly that researchers with ongoing projects weren’t sure if they could get their project done. Luckily, provincial governments have stepped in to save this but large facilities should not face quick decisions on funding cuts without consultation. And in both these examples, funding for small equipment and our largest research stations, we see a problem. Lack of consultation and lack of long term planning. No apparent understanding of the impacts for the science community.

The other big funding issue has not been a fast change but a slower onslaught that is eroding basic research. The operating grants have always included funds for basic science, curiosity driven science. This may seem like unimportant work but this is the driver of innovation. Listen to Nobel Laureates talk about their research and they mostly say it is curiosity that drove the big discovery. Fundamental discoveries don’t come from applied science but from basic science. But science funding in Canada is more and more tied to to partnership programs. In these cases, researchers must convince an industry or governments agency that their research will be directly useful to the partner. Often it requires the partner to put up some money or in kind service to demonstrate their interest. This can produce some great applied research. Full confession here, I have applied research funding and I am not philosophically opposed to it at all. What I am opposed to is our current balance in these funding streams. Partnership programs are being so well supported it has come at the cost of basic science funding. As our basic funding is eroded so is our chance at truly remarkable discoveries and after all, isn’t discovery what science is really all about?