25 years ago, in late August 1998, something interesting happened in Canadian atmospheric science:
A large Canadian scientific stratospheric balloon was launched from Saskatchewan on August 24, 1998. It was intended to have a flight lasting about 24 hours and stay relatively near its launch site. Instead, it went on an unexpected adventure across an ocean and into several countries’ airspaces. Fighter jets were tasked with taking it down. World news organizations covered the updates.
This is the MANTRA 1998 story.
What is a stratospheric balloon?
It’s a very large balloon, typically filled with Helium, that carries a scientific payload (instruments and support systems) weighing up to ~a tonne (1000 kg) into the stratosphere (15 to ~50 km altitude).
They can be as tall as the CN Tower observation deck!
Stratospheric balloons like MANTRA are much larger & complex than common weather balloons, which also are typically Helium filled and carry instruments into the stratosphere. But those payloads are very small and light: ~250 g. That makes MANTRA’s scientific sensor payload (~300 kg) about 1200 times larger. Some sensor payloads are even larger.
Eureka Weather Station balloon launch preparations.
MANTRA was 150 meters high or about the size of a 25-story building when at stratospheric altitudes.
Photo showing MANTRA98 being prepared for launch, overnight August 23/24, 1998.
The MANTRA balloon included a variety of instruments designed to measure ozone chemistry-related atmospheric gases. There were also systems for power and control of the balloon. Its gondola was 2 m × 2 m × 2 m in size, constructed using a light aluminum frame. The total payload weighed 630 kg.
Schematic of MANTRA gondola from Strong et al. 2005.
More specifically, MANTRA instruments sought to acquire:
Vertical profiles of: NO2, HNO3, HCl, CFC-11, CFC-12, N2O, CH4, temperature, and aerosol backscatter from balloon instruments.
Total columns of: O3, NO2, SO2, aerosol optical depth by ground-based spectrometers.
Days are getting longer everywhere in the northern hemisphere this time of year.* In the Arctic, the change in sunlight is particularly dramatic.
A few days ago, sunlight returned to Eureka, Nunavut for the first time since October, marking the end of Polar Night.
Joseph Mendonca and I watch the sun rise late morning on Feb. 25, 2013 in Eureka, Nunavut (photo credit: Paul Loewen)
During the transition between Polar Night and the continuous daylight of summer (“Midnight Sun”), a team of Canadian scientists take measurements of the changing atmosphere above Eureka at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) using specialized instruments.
(I was part of that team until recently. Daily updates from the campaign are posted here.)
Installing atmospheric monitoring instruments on the roof of the PEARL Ridge Lab during the 2014 sunrise campaign.
The return of sunlight after a long absence generates significant changes in the atmosphere. Ozone depletion chemistry, for example, is acutely impacted. A former colleague of mine wrote a blog about it here.
I made a few plots to show how big the sunlight shift is in high Arctic, with a few other locations included for comparison. This change in light has profound impacts on the environment, animals and plants, and people.
In Toronto (43°N), the amount of sunlight in a day stretches from 9 hours in mid-winter to over 15 hours in mid-June.
Sunlight hours each day in Toronto
The size of the seasonal change in sunlight depends on latitude. If you go south from Toronto, there’s less change over the course of the year. In the Caribbean, for example, a hypothetical province called Saskatchewarm would have relatively stable sunlight throughout the year:
Sunlight hours each day in the hypothetical “Saskatchewarm” in the Caribbean
Yellowknife, Northwest Territories (63°N) is much farther north than most Canadians venture. I recommend visiting it: there is fantastic art and culture to see. And it’s a good place to see Aurora Borealis. Since it’s 2000 km north of Toronto, it experiences a much larger swing in seasonal sunlight. It’s quite a big change: days in Yellowknife range from 5 hours in mid-winter to 20 hours mid-summer.
Sunlight hours each day in Yellowknife (2000 km north of Toronto)
From the North/South point of view, Yellowknife is roughly equal distances between the southernmost and the northernmost parts of Canada. The Canadian Arctic is a vast region. Let’s head another 2000 km north to look at daylight in the extreme case of Eureka.
Arctic landscape – Ellesmere Island
Eureka is a high Arctic research site at 80°N, on Ellesmere Island. The daylight hours plot is oddly shaped compared to southern sites. For most of the year, daylight doesn’t change day-to-day: it’s either totally dark or light.
Sunlight hours each day in Eureka
The transition between total darkness and never ending day takes only 2 months. This morning, the Eureka sunrise occurred at a rather convenient 10 am. It’ll set mid-afternoon. In a week, sunrise will occur more than an hour earlier, and sunset an hour later.
Rapid change in high Arctic sunlight
Sunrise at Eureka, Nunavut from the road to PEARL
Why does this happen?
This happens because the Earth’s axis tilts the Polar Regions completely away from the Sun, and into complete darkness in winter, and tilts towards the Sun for part of the summer. During summer in the Arctic, the Sun moves in a circle across the sky once per day, never setting.
Over the course of the year in the Polar Regions, the Earth’s axial tilt creates Polar Night during winter and the Midnight Sun during summer. Credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Circle#Midnight_sun_and_polar_night
If we combine the plots for all three sites, a couple of interesting dates pop out:
Sunlight at Eureka, Yellowknife, and Toronto
Here’s a fun trivia question to ask friends and family: on what day of the year do all places on the planet have the same length of a day?
The length of a day is equal everywhere on the planet two days a year.** These are the intersection points between the sunlight hours at Toronto, Yellowknife, and Eureka. If I added other cities, they would also intersect at those points. These special dates, March 20 and September 23, are when the Earth is facing the sun upright with no relative tilt. Day and night are both 12-hours long. (Another trivia question could be on what day are day and night the same length.) They’re called the equinoxes.
Also noticeable on the plot is that the length of the day is maximum mid-summer (June 21) and minimum in winter (December 21). These dates are the solstices, when the tilt of the Earth is either fully towards or away from the Sun.
I hope this puts the changing daylight hours you experience in a new light.
Enjoy!
Sunset over Mississauga, viewed from downtown Toronto
** atmospheric refraction can slightly impact the equality of the daytime/nighttime on the day of the equinoxes.
Acknowledgements:
Thank you to the python community, which has developed and maintained the packages I use to make nice plots, i.e. matplotlib, numpy, pandas, and calculate the sunrise/sunset, i.e. ephem, pytz.
I’ve been asked many times by friends, audience members at public talks, and journalists:
“Why is PEARL needed now that Canada has CHARS?”
The question came up again recently because of discussion about the Trudeau government’s decision not to renew or replace the Climate Change and Atmospheric Research (CCAR) program, which had funded a range of research projects – including PEARL. This is the latest development in a long string of cuts to Canadian climate science. Top scientists in the field have described the current funding situation as a “crisis”.
Both the Harper and Trudeau governments have pointed to CHARS as a reason to commend their efforts in the areas of Arctic and climate research. I support CHARS. It’s a world-class facility that will contribute great science. But CHARS doesn’t accomplish what PEARL or the CCAR program does. In this post, I’ll highlight some of the major differences.
First, I will briefly describe what each of those acronyms refer to. Both PEARL and CHARS are permanent research stations in the Canadian Arctic. But they are quite different entities.
CHARS is the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, a new $204 million federal government facility with an annual budget of $26.5 million. Its focus is on ecology, sustainability, and northern communities. Located in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, CHARS is part of Polar Knowledge Canada (POLAR), an agency of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. POLAR’s headquarters is located in the main CHARS building.
The Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS). Photo credit: Government of Canada / CIRNA flickr account (here).
PEARL is the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, an atmospheric observatory located near Eureka, Nunavut on Ellesmere Island. Originally built as the Arctic Stratospheric Ozone Observatory (AStrO) in 1992 by Environment Canada, it re-opened in July 2006 as PEARL under the leadership of Canadian university scientists (full time AStrO operations ended in 2001 due to budget cuts). Over the last decade, its capabilities have grown significantly. It is now one of the world’s most comprehensive and sophisticated atmospheric observatories in the Arctic. At 80°N, it is the northernmost site for many types of ground-based atmospheric observations. PEARL has a budget of approximately $1 to 1.5 million/year.
PEARL Ridge Lab
Immediately it’s clear there are big differences. CHARS is a major government facility with a broad mandate; PEARL is a remote academic-run atmospheric observatory.
I’ll add a few details about the key differences: location, science, and scale.
The location.
The Canadian Arctic is huge. While both PEARL and CHARS are in Nunavut, PEARL is 1200 km north of CHARS. That’s roughly the distance between Toronto and Halifax or between Calgary and Yellowknife.
Map showing location of CHARS & Cambridge Bay and Eureka & PEARL
Cambridge Bay is a community of 1800 people and has regular commercial flights from Yellowknife.
On the other hand, Eureka is a remote research outpost that cannot be reached by commercial flights. When PEARL researchers travel to the facility for fieldwork, they take small charter plane from Yellowknife, stopping in Cambridge Bay and Resolute on their way north to Eureka to refuel.
Their different locations reflect their different scientific priorities.
The Cambridge Bay location is good for biologists and ecologists because it is close to many different ecosystems as well as caribou and muskox populations of interest to biologists. It also has a central Arctic location, which will help it to support field work in the surrounding region.
Map illustrating the many different ecoregions near CHARS and Cambridge Bay (from talk slides by CHARS Chief Scientist Dr. Raillard here)
While there would be value in doing atmospheric measurements at CHARS, Cambridge Bay isn’t an ideal place to do all the research done at PEARL. For example, the location is too far south for it to be within the Polar Vortex regularly during the February/March window when sunlight returns and ozone depletion chemistry occurs. AStrO/PEARL was built in Eureka because scientists needed measurements that far north.
Location of the Polar Vortex, PEARL, and CHARS (January 2018). Image source: earth.nullschool.net
Cambridge Bay can’t offer the same ability to do satellite validation, either. Eureka is a sweet-spot, where many Canadian and international satellites frequently pass overhead due to their orbital geometry.
Available satellite overpasses at Canadian Arctic sites for a common orbit (Fogal et al. 2013)
Lastly, the environment is simply different at CHARS than at PEARL. As noted, they are quite distant from one another. If you want to measure the atmosphere of the high Arctic, you have to go there.
The type of science they do.
CHARS’s original priorities were resource development, science, and the development and commercialization of technology. When the Trudeau government came into power, they shifted that mandate away from resource development and technology commercialization and towards northern communities and sustainability.
The physical lab space of CHARS was designed with biology in mind. For example, there is a large animal necropsy facility (complete with a crane for loading large animals), genomics lab, as well as a cold lab for studying ice cores and a growth chamber for studying plant growth. (The CHARS floor plan is online here.) Indeed the CHARS Chief Scientist, Dr. Martin Raillard, is formerly a field scientist for Parks Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Service. His expertise aligns very well with the station’s priorities.
CHARS floor plan (ground floor)
There are no rooftop labs at CHARS. Skyward-looking science was not part of the CHARS design. There are no astronomy or atmospheric instruments, for example. The promotion of CHARS in the media and elsewhere often describe it as a facility for “Arctic science”. I think this is why I keep getting asked about CHARS: people get the mistaken impression that it is able to do everything involving science in the Arctic.
View of the CHARS facility. Photo credit: Government of Canada. Source here.
I’m certain there are atmospheric scientists keen to potentially set up instruments at CHARS. It could be a useful addition to existing networks. But CHARS would have to have an interest in doing so, and such a collaboration wouldn’t replace other observation sites like PEARL.
Roof of the PEARL Ridge Lab: where the action is
PEARL doesn’t have facilities for biology or ice core analysis. But it does have world-class instruments that measure the high Arctic atmosphere and that contributes to studies of atmospheric chemistry, climate, aerosols, and many other related topics. None of these measurements are done at CHARS.
PEARL 0PAL lab (with LIDAR operating)
Scale
CHARS is a larger operation than PEARL. The annual budget for CHARS operations is $26.5 million. There is over 50 staff. The site has space for dozens of scientists, including housing for about 50. There is also a large public space inside and outside the main building aimed at fostering connections with the surrounding community. Science done through CHARS involves fieldwork across the territories, not only the Cambridge Bay site.
Nunatsiaq News reports that the government spent $1 million on artwork that was installed outside the main CHARS building (the “Polar Iconic Structure” by Wei Yew). I fully support public art. It looks really great. But its cost illustrates the different the scale of these two facilities. The money spent on that art installation could fund PEARL for a year.
PEARL, when fully funded, operates on a budget of about $1.5 million. The current Minister of Science, Kirsty Duncan, once called the amount needed to operate PEARL “a pittance” for what it accomplishes. (Indeed, she recently helped arrange temporary support to prevent PEARL from closing due to budget cuts to Canadian climate and atmospheric science funding.)
PEARL has one major scale advantage over CHARS: some of its key datasets go back 25 years. These long-term measurements are extremely valuable for scientists looking at how the atmosphere and climate are changing over time. CHARS will build up datasets over time, but for the moment, they’re still in year one.
Polar Iconic Structure by Wei Yew. Photo credit: Government of Canada / CIRNA flickr account (here)
PEARL has an extensive suite of instruments spread across multiple locations near Eureka. Often, only one or two technicians are on site. Researchers at Canadian universities connect to instruments remotely through the world’s most northern geostationary satellite internet link.
PEARL technician cleans wind instruments at the flux tower
For a few weeks at a time, campaign teams of 2 to 10 researchers conduct more intensive operations on site at PEARL. Although the PEARL Ridge Lab has two rooms with bunk beds, PEARL researchers typically sleep and eat at the nearby Eureka Weather Station.
Summary
POLAR/CHARS could decide to expand its activity to include atmospheric measurements. That could be beneficial for both CHARS and the Canadian atmospheric and climate community. What is far less clear is whether POLAR/CHARS could expand to become a source for funding the type of research formerly supported by CCAR and other lost programs. Since PEARL offers capabilities CHARS lacks, it could be a complementary match. But this would not be an easy fit, given the differences in structure and priorities. NSERC, the organization that funds physical sciences in Canada, recommended renewal of CCAR.
There are many fields of science that contribute to understanding the vast Canadian Arctic. CHARS is a huge investment in northern science that should be celebrated. But we also have to recognize what it doesn’t accomplish, and the value of other research projects going on across the region as well. At the moment, there is a significant gap in Canadian climate science funding left by the Trudeau government’s cancellation of CCAR. CHARS doesn’t fill it. At least, not in its current form. In my view, Canadian science is best served by supporting both CHARS and PEARL as separate entities that each contribute important research in the Canadian Arctic.
Fogal, P., LeBlanc, L. M., and Drummond, J.R.: The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL): Sounding the Atmosphere at 80 North. Arctic, 66 (3), 2013. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23594645
Yesterday, the government announced it will support science and operations at PEARL, Canada’s high Arctic atmospheric research facility, until fall 2019. That is great news.
Canadians and scientists spoke out. Politicians responded. Science advocacy works.
What’s next? Is this ‘mission accomplished’?
No. Not at all. This is only a first step.
The announced support is “bridge funding,” meaning that it is temporary and short-term. It solves an immediate problem: PEARL was preparing to shut down due to a rapidly approaching end-of-funding horizon in a few months. Many long-term datasets and projects studying how the atmosphere works and how it is changing were at risk. This new funding ensures those measurements will continue. For a while.
What’s on the other end of the bridge?
At the moment, nothing. We’re poised for another funding crisis in 2019. Just like 2017. And 2012. And 2002*. Will I find myself leading another march for science, asking the government to fund PEARL again in a couple years? (I discussed this in a recent Story Collider event: script here.)
This temporary funding for PEARL is necessary because the Trudeau government decided not to continue or replace the existing formal funding mechanism, the Canadian Climate and Atmospheric Research (CCAR) program. CCAR supported several major research projects, one of which was PEARL. CCAR was evaluated by NSERC a year ago (online report & infographic), which recommended continued funding because it provided unique and much-needed support for Canadian scientists. It even noted PEARL wouldn’t exist without CCAR – it “saved PEARL” in 2013. But no money was allocated to continue CCAR in the spring budget, creating a crisis in Canadian climate science funding. Other affected projects are still without a clear path forward.
“Climate change research and the Arctic are far too important and they deserve more than one-off efforts. They deserve a comprehensive, thoughtful, approach.”
She is absolutely right. But what we have at the moment is another one-off effort. What we need next is the comprehensive, thoughtful approach.
CCAR wasn’t perfect. It only had one scale of project funding and was designed to accept proposals only once every five years. The funds had limitations, e.g. PEARL couldn’t pay for electricity using CCAR grant money. And clearly the CCAR structure wasn’t immune from political winds. It existed briefly, to pick up the pieces after an earlier, larger funding program was left to crumble by the Harper government, only to be ended by the Trudeau government. This hardly seems to have been a stable, long-term platform for supporting climate science.
Canada can do better.
We could create a foundation to administer climate and atmospheric research funding. It could be set up at arms-length from the government with an eye on the long-term nature of the issues. It should offer support for research at multiple scales, and have regular calls for new proposals. This was done before, in the early 2000s. It was called the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS), and was ended in 2011 by the Harper government. This precipitated PEARL’s 2012 funding crisis.
CFCAS was a good model that could be used as inspiration for this government’s own solution. Its annual reports are still available online, and outline the enormous impact it had in ensuring that Canada was a leader in atmospheric and climate science – exactly the outcome yesterday’s press release identifies as the big picture goal.
Emergency last-minute funding squeezed out of somewhere is not the way Canada should support important science. We need stable, long-term funding for climate and atmospheric research, guided by a vision for Canadian science and environmental stewardship.
Our next step, as scientists, citizens, and science advocates, should be to push Canada to create a plan to secure Canadian climate and atmospheric science expertise and leadership for the long-term.
* The PEARL Ridge Lab was originally constructed in 1992 by Environment Canada to monitor stratospheric ozone depletion under the name Arctic Stratospheric Observatory, or AStrO. Due to cuts to research funding, AStrO closed in 2002. See, for example, EC’s old webpage on AStrO. It took a few years for Canadian academics to re-open the facility as PEARL. It was significantly expanded under the leadership of Prof. Jim Drummond.
Dan Weaver at the 80 degree north sign between Eureka, NU and the PEARL Ridge Lab.
Recently my photography has been featured in two Canadian science journals.
In between taking measurements of the Canadian high Arctic atmosphere, troubleshooting instruments, and running communications for the research team at PEARL, I took plenty of photos. They’ve been useful for public talks, science communications, and general enjoyment. So far, my photos have found their way into a calendar, major news outlets, a variety of websites, and now the two cover photos.
First up was the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) Bulletin. Their December 2016 issue featured a photo of the PEARL research team installing instruments on the roof. These instruments were for satellite validation. I also contributed an article about the fieldwork and a small collection of photos. And, of course, the cover! You can find the excerpt I contributed here:
Next was the Physics in Canada Issue 01 of 2017. While it was the first issue of the year, it wasn’t published until June. In any case, my photo is on the cover! The photo is also taken on the PEARL roof. It features the protective enclosure of a sun tracking instrument that sends a beam of sunlight down into the infrared (IR) spectroscopy lab below. I spent plenty of time during campaigns both on the roof and within the IR lab.
Research from colleagues of mine filled the issue. However, there isn’t a way to provide direct links to specific issues on the PiC site.
All parties agree Canada needs to do more to foster innovation and the commercialization of research. For decades, Canada has failed to effectively capitalize on its strong research universities to foster innovative companies. The Conservative, NDP, and Liberal platforms commit Canada to investing in research that supports innovation generally, as well as the manufacturing, agriculture, and natural resources (e.g. forestry, mining, fisheries) sectors specifically. The NDP and Conservatives commit to supporting the space industry. Despite being equipped with Canada’s first astronaut, the Liberals don’t mention the Canadian Space Agency or the space industry.
Beyond innovation, platforms diverge.
The Conservatives view science narrowly, and treat it almost exclusively as a tool for economic development. As the Harper-appointed President of the National Research Council said a few years ago, “scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value.” In essence, that is the Conservative platform on science.
There are three exceptions to the Conservative’s singular emphasis on private-sector research needs. The Conservatives also pledge to fund “cutting-edge health research”, specifically targeting improvements to palliative care, cancer treatment, and the Canada Brain Research Fund. They would also continue to fund research into the root causes of terrorism. (A dramatic change of mind from a Prime Minister that once told Trudeau not to “commit sociology”.) Lastly, the Conservatives included a plainly worded vague commitment to provide “ongoing support for” the granting councils that fund most university research in Canada (NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR). This makes the recent editorial cartoon musing that the Conservatives wish to eliminate science altogether at least slightly exaggerated.
These Conservative platform pieces are laudable policies. However, much is missing.
Public interest science, designed to inform politicians and Canadians about pressing environmental, health, and social issues, is absent from the Conservative platform. However, their governing record offers insights into what role they think science should play in government policy. While in power, the Conservatives have dismissed the expertise of federal scientists as mere opinion, demonstrated a worrisome lack of scientific literacy (e.g. here, here, and here), cut research funding, fired thousands of public scientists, and muzzled government scientists. (Longer lists are available elsewhere.) There is no indication this pattern will change. Indeed, financial planning documents show that further cuts to government science programs are planned (e.g. Environment Canada resources will be cut annually).
The NDPand Liberal Party propose a more expansive role for science and evidence. Both platforms commit restoring the long-form census and increasing research funding. Both parties commit to making government data freely available. Both parties support allowing publicly-funded scientists to openly speak to the public and media about research results (a popular policy amongst Canadians, according to a Maclean’s poll). Both have committed to restoring environmental protections lost when the Fisheries Act was gutted and the Navigable Waters Protections Act was eliminated.
Significantly, and in contrast to the Conservatives, the NDP and Liberals propose creating institutions that would advise politicians of facts relevant to policy issues, and help inform government decisions with the best available evidence. To accomplish this, the NDP would create the Office of the Parliamentary Science Officer and a Scientific Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. These institutions would “ensure that our government always has access to the best possible scientific advice from experts in all fields.” The Liberals, meanwhile, promise to enhance Parliamentary committees with non-partisan research staff, and create a Chief Science Officer with a mandate to ensure government science is publicly available, scientists can speak freely and that scientific analysis is considered in government decisions. Our G7 partners all have science advisors. The U.S. has a well-resourced Office of Science and Technology Policy. It’s long past time that Canada catches up to the needs of 21st century policymaking.
If the Liberals and NDP find themselves in a minority Parliament, science offers fertile opportunities to find common ground. There are, however, differences between the NDP and Liberals.
The NDP platform mentions science and research the fewest times of all. However, they make substantial commitments. Similar to the Conservatives and Liberals, they would promote innovation and industrial/business-focused research. Uniquely, the NDP would create funding for women’s organizations and community-based health research. They also want to make it “easier for businesses to access government support for innovation, talent and R&D.” It is unclear what the NDP believe is lacking in the federal government’s literal concierge service for industrial research support.
The Liberal platformoffers more to science and research than either the NDP or Conservatives. The Liberals offer specific commitments that repair some cuts to science under the Conservatives, including investments in freshwater research and the Experimental Lakes Area, enhancements to support for marine and ocean science and pollution monitoring, and funding for Canada Research Chairs in sustainable technology. These proposals don’t match the scale of losses incurred over the last decade. But they are a start.
The Liberals included a section devoted to “Evidence-Based Policy”, which includes general commitments similar to the NDP (e.g. “Government should base its policies on facts”) but also specific commitments and details which are unique. Not only would they restore the long-form census, they also commit to expanding data collection by Statistics Canada (e.g. “including detailed labour market information) and “make Statistics Canada fully independent.” The latter point is significant, and aims to prevent another instance of critical data becoming compromised by politics.
The Liberals also propose expanding entrepreneurship programs, clean technology research funds, and co-op placements for science, math, and engineering students.
Overall, in my view, the Liberal Party platform contains the best set of commitments to support science, use evidence in government decisions, and leverage Canada’s tremendous research talent for Canadians’ benefit.
I nonetheless hope that – no matter who forms the next government – Canada creates a respected and valued place for knowledge, data, and science. There are good ideas in all three platform documents. But it is action that will help Canadians. If the Liberals and NDP keep their word and make decisions based on the best data, and release that data to the public, Canadian society and democracy will benefit immensely. Time will tell.
Access all platform documents conveniently from the CBC here.
I have left my raw notes/copied reference text from the platforms here.
It’s inspiring to see a Canadian and a Canadian experiment sharing the 2015 Nobel Prize in physics. This is significant international recognition of Canadian scientific excellence.
I studied the neutrino experiments in Canada and Japan in detail in undergrad physics courses (see this YouTube video for a fun explanation of neutrino oscillation using pies). It’s fascinating science. However, these are example of fundamental research with no obvious or immediate commercial application. Regrettably, our current government has implemented policies that limit this type of science in Canada.
Consider an illustrative example: the current President of Canada’s National Research Council, appointed by the Prime Minister, has stated that “scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value.” Yikes. I disagree. Commercialization of research and innovation is a good thing. But it shouldn’t come at the expense of basic research. Frequently, research grants now require industry partners. This makes it very difficult for many research streams which may not align with industry wishes. If you cut off fundamental “blue sky” research, you turn off the tap fuelling the technology-driven knowledge economy. It’s short sighted.
When lasers were first invented, they had no immediate applications. It took decades, but eventually their commercial value was immense. Even neutrino research is leading to new technology and ideas with the potential to help with border security (scanning cargo containers for nuclear material), and maybe even mining and communication. It’s impossible to predict where research into the nature of the universe will go. But it’s worth pursuing.
The Liberals and the NDP both have significant elements in their platforms about supporting Canadian science. The Conservatives? They’ve been cutting research budgets, misunderstanding innovation, and firing scientists for a decade. I can’t find anything about science on their website. It’s time for their “subtle darkening of Canadian life” (as described in a recent NY Times article) to come to an end. It’s time for Canada to step back into the light, and vote for a government that values and supports science this election.
I’m an ardent supporter of Evidence for Democracy (E4D), and am a member of their Board of Directors. E4D is a non-partisan non-profit organization aiming to “support strong public policies built on the best available evidence for the health and prosperity of all Canadians.” I encourage you to check us out.
Follow E4D on Facebook and Twitter to stay up-to-date on issues concerning Canadian science policy. Or get email updates.
There are many aspects of Canada’s science policy motivating me to be involved with E4D. I’ve highlighted some of them here. I’m frustrated by the current Canadian government’s direct cuts to research grants, and to government-conducted science in the public interest. I’m concerned the ongoing muzzling of Canadian federal government scientists undermines our democracy and national policies. Lastly, the Harper government does not seem to value science, and research (despite its lofty claims).
Graduate studies in physics become wrapped up in politics
Two years ago (2012), I experienced a political shock to my scientific life. I was excitedly conducting fieldwork at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL). I was a relatively new graduate student at the time, and I was impressed by the work being conducted at the lab (topics include Arctic, climate, ozone, pollution, and atmospheric dynamics). PEARL is part of many national and international research networks which benefit immensely from its valuable location and sophisticated instrumentation. It was thrilling to be part of a great science team, and a privilege to experience a part of the country very few people visit. In fact, its salience was underscored during the previous year’s research campaign: the team had measured the formation of the first-ever (observed) Arctic ozone hole. This had happened regularly in Antarctica, but not in the Arctic. This development is not good news, and PEARL is the only Canadian ground facility situated far enough North and equipped to study such phenomena.
Adjusting a sun tracker on the roof of PEARL
Half-way through our research campaign PEARL’s funding was cut. Once you lose a permanent installation like PEARL, situated in a dramatically isolated, challenging environment, it’s very difficult to get back. I couldn’t understand why. We didn’t cost much money, contributed to the public good, had an international reputation for excellent science, and the support and backing of multiple government agencies. I started the Save PEARL Facebook and Twitter accounts. 10 months later, we would get a reprieve – though with substantially scaled back operations. I’ve gone to international science meetings where people quietly wonder… what’s going on in Canada?
Cuts to Canadian research funding
PEARL was not an isolated case. Labs across the country, in a variety of fields, are being shut. Grants have been re-organized, cut, and restructured (for example, the NSERC Major Resources Support program was cut and not replaced. It provided operational funding for dozens of significant research facilities). Extensive lists of closures can be found elsewhere (e.g. CBC cuts summary, John Dupuis’s blog). What’s often striking is not only the significance of the work that is being cut. It’s the wasteful treatment of taxpayer investment. To take one example, the Kluane research facility was granted $2 million to renovate in 2012, based on five decades of excellent research and the government’s desire to bolster Canada’s northern infrastructure. A year later (2012), the government cut all funding from it. It’s not just a loss for Canadian science, it’s a waste of taxpayer investments in research infrastructure and expertise.
Cuts to government (public interest) science
It’s not just grants to University-based research that has undergone dramatic changes and cuts. Government science has suffered immensely. The DFO (now “Fisheries and Oceans Canada”) has had a great deal of cuts. $100 million at least. It no longer does marine mammal toxicology. Most people working in ocean pollution have lost their jobs. Famously, the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area was determined to be no longer within its mandate (Save ELA!). Environment Canada is suffering the same dramatic level of staff and research cuts. The Canadian Space Agency doesn’t have research scientists anymore! It seems the Canadian government is actively shedding its use of science in policy making. The world’s foremost scientific journal, Nature, expressed concern about Canada’s support for science.
Evidence for Democracy is working hard at the moment to develop an authoritative, interactive portal to information about this Canada-wide culling of scientific research capacity. Help us by volunteering or donating.
Libraries
Nature recently returned to the question of Canadian science policy when dramatic cuts to government science libraries splashed into the media. Indeed, government libraries have been cut substantially, affecting Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada particularly. Access to materials important to the work of Canadian researchers has been undermined. The government has not been transparent about the criteria used to decide what materials it discarded and what materials it kept. Scientists have spoke out, arguing important records have not been systematically kept, and not all material appears available digitally. Some materials have even been thrown in the dumpster.
Federal scientists are rumoured to have even started to create informal libraries in their own homes, in order to preserve access to resources needed to do their jobs. This led to a hilarious (but sad) Rick Mercer sketch. It’s two minutes of fun, and hits an important point. Scientists in the federal government are being fired by the thousands. Those that remain are having their ability to work undermined.
New strict controls limiting the ability for government scientists to speak to the public and media is another significant issue. 86% of Canadian federal scientists would face censure or retaliation for speaking about decisions that would harm the health and safety of Canadians, a recent survey revealed. Evidence and democracy are connected. If Canadian scientists *know* policies are damaging to the country, they should be required, not prevented, from expressing that point of view. Canadians should demand the right to be informed. Regrettably, the Harper government has changed the Code of Conduct for federal employees – demanding loyalty to the political government instead of to taxpaying Canadians. This is a fundamental shift away from government transparency, a dramatic twist of accountability, and a direct effort to undermine an informed and engaged public.
Nature published a column about the muzzling issue here.
Evidence for Democracy has a website and petition about the censorship of Canadian scientists. Check out Science: Uncensored.
While attending the Canadian Science Policy Conference this past November, I had the opportunity to chat with Deputy Minister of Industry Canada, John Knubley. I asked him about the survey and the issue of muzzling. He said much of the issue was a misunderstanding, but that part of it was a difference in values between the political government and the rest. He was guarded in talking about it. But the difference in “values” rings true.
Canadian science policy
The values driving this government’s policies are not in line with Canadian values as I see them. I value a well-informed public. I value evidence-informed public policy. I want a long-term vision for Canadian prosperity supported by investment in basic research and balanced with environmental protection.
The government is currently re-examining its science and technology policy. However, there is no indication substantial changes will occur. Among the most important missteps in its draft paper is the continued lack of support for any research that doesn’t have a direct and immediate potential to be commercialized. Supporting industry and innovation is important. But creating new technology products isn’t the exclusive purpose of science. And innovation ultimately relies on fundamental, basic science – which is being cut in the name of supporting business innovation. Transforming Canada’s research capacity into a literal “concierge” to industry limits the ability for research to benefit Canadians. Canada needs research to generate more than tech products.
See Evidence for Democracy’s full submission to the Government of Canada regarding the new science and technology policy.
How we value science and knowledge in our society shapes our future. I’m concerned the current government is making important mistakes. I feel compelled to take action. E4D has many great ideas in development that can make an impact on Canadian science policy and benefit Canadians. We could use your help. Join and support the Canadian science advocates at Evidence for Democracy!
Walking down University Ave. during the Canada-wide E4D led “Stand Up for Science” rally in Toronto.
