Get Science Right in Canada

Get Science Right

---

Marc Kirschner Defends Basic Science

Marc Kirschner is Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. He's a very smart man and a well-respected scientist.¹ He has an editorial in the June 14th issue of Science: A Perverted View of “Impact” [see also: In search of big breakthroughs: why attempts to predict ‘significant’ research might backfire in The Boston Globe]

Kirschner says that the emphasis on "significance" and "impact" in making funding decisions is "misleading and dangerous." Nobody can really predict how fundamental research will affect the future. He writes ...
Read more »

PZ's Wonderful Exam Question

PZ Myers has just given his students a take-home exam. Here's one of the questions [It’s another exam day! ] ...

Question 1: One of Sarah Palin’s notorious gaffes was her dismissal of “fruit fly research” — she thought it was absurd that the government actually funded science on flies. How would you explain to a congressman that basic research is important? I’m going to put two constraints on your answer: 1) It has to be comprehensible to Michele Bachmann, and 2) don’t take the shortcut of promising that which you may not deliver. That is, no “maybe it will cure cancer!” claims, but focus instead on why we should appreciate deeper knowledge of biology.

That first restriction is going to make answering the question a real challenge 'cause you have to take into account the mentality of someone who is not just scientifically illiterate but scientifically anti-literate.

Nevertheless, this is exactly the sort of thing you want your science graduates to know.

---

The Proper Role of Scientific Societies

Scientific societies are made up of groups of scientists who band together for various legitimate purposes such as organizing meetings, publishing journals, promoting their speciality, and lobbying for funds. The credibility of a society depends on its area of expertise. They lose credibility when they take positions on issues outside of their discipline.

That's why many of us have been opposed to the accommodationist positions of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and other societies. These societies have no special expertise in epistemology/philosophy or religion yet they openly proclaim that science and religion are compatible. They should be neutral on that question. A (slight) majority of Sandwalk readers agree, according to a poll I took a few years ago [What Should Scientific Organizations Say about Religion?].

I wasn't alone in adopting this position. Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers also think that scientific societies should keep their nose out of areas that are outside of their mandate. We are united when it comes to opposing accommodationism.

Read more »

Dysfunctional Science

Carl Zimmer, one of the top science writers in the world, has written an article for the New York Times with the following provocative title: A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform. It's partly about the rise in the rate of retractions¹ in scientific journals. This is a serious problem and it's hard to figure out the underlying cause, in spite of the fact that many of the people who comment think they know the answer.

But there's much more to this story as Carl explains on his blog [Dysfunctional science: My story in tomorrow’s New York Times].

In tomorrow’s New York Times, I’ve got a long story about a growing sense among scientists that science itself is getting dysfunctional. For them, the clearest sign of this dysfunction is the growing rate of retractions of scientific papers, either due to errors or due to misconduct. But retractions represent just the most obvious symptom of deep institutional problems with how science is done these days–how projects get funded, how scientists find jobs, and how they keep labs up and running.

As usual, Carl's got it right. There's something wrong with science, or perhaps I should say there's something wrong with the biological sciences since Sean Carroll doesn't see the same problem in physics [Is Physics Among the Dysfunctional Sciences?].

---

1. The rate is about 0.04%. Compare this to the rate of fraudulent creationist publications, which is close to 100%.

Sign a Petition on CIHR Funding

 
Are you a Canadian researcher who cares about the dismal CIHR funding situation?

Sign the petition at: The CIHR Individual Grants Program. It may not do much good but at least you'll have 700+ friends (latest count).

---

Jonathan Wells Is a Winner!

 
This week's Egregiously stupid remark of the week by an IDiot goes to Jonathan Wells for his comment about HOX genes.

---

Swine Flu and "The Canadian Problem"

 
TV, radio, and newspapers in Canada are abuzz with the lastest studies on swine flu. According to "preliminary reports" your chances of getting swine flu are increased if you get/got? the regular flu shot. This is prompting Canadian public health officials to recommend holding off on the regular flu shot until after you get the swine flu shot ... which won't be available until November.

The so-called "preliminary data" doesn't make any sense as public health experts on Effect measure point out: Once more on the vaccine question.

The confusion isn't helped by ambiguous reporting such as this from Canadian Press: Study linking flu shots, swine flu raises concern abroad, prompt changes at home.

The data, referred to as "the Canadian problem" by some scientists outside this country, are reported to link getting a flu shot last year with double the risk of contracting swine flu this year.

The link, if real, is to mild disease. One person who has seen the study says it seems to suggest that those who got a seasonal flu shot were less likely to develop severe disease if they became infected than those who hadn't received the shot.

Say what?

Nobody else is reporting a connection between this year's swine flu and whether or not you got a flu shot last year. Part of the problem is that Canadian health officials might be basing decisions on a flawed study. That's unacceptable.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this situation is that the actual study may not be available for some time. According to Canadian Press ...

Drawn from a series of studies from British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, the work is led by Dr. Danuta Skowronski of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control and Dr. Gaston De Serres of Laval University.

They have submitted the paper to an unnamed scientific journal and are therefore constrained about what they can say about the work. Journals bar would-be authors from discussing their results before they are published.

"For me, it's very important that we respect the peer-review process as good scientists. Because the implications ... are important," Skowronski said in an interview Wednesday.

"And if there are methodologic flaws, we need to be assured that every stone was turned over to make sure what we're reporting is valid."

This is unethical behavior at many levels. First, journals have no right to block access to essential information that's needed to make public health decisions in the middle of a pandemic. That journal should be identified and forced to defend it's policy. Second, no reputable scientists should agree to such an embargo in the first place. Third, if the journal and the scientists enter into a deal to remain silent then how come we know about this study? It sounds like the authors may want to have their cake and eat it too.

---

How Granting Agencies Destroy Young Scientists

 
Peter Lawrence has an article in the latest issue of PLoS Biology: Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research.

He's not saying anything we don't already know but he says it so well. Peter describes the typical example of a young researcher (K.) who is frustrated and discouraged by the way science is funded in the UK. The details may differ but it's the same basic story at universities in North America and everywhere else.

He then describes his own experience and highlights the problem.

After more than 40 years of full-time research in developmental biology and genetics, I wrote my first grant and showed it to those experienced in grantsmanship. They advised me my application would not succeed. I had explained that we didn't know what experiments might deliver, and had acknowledged the technical problems that beset research and the possibility that competitors might solve problems before we did. My advisors said these admissions made the project look precarious and would sink the application. I was counselled to produce a detailed, but straightforward, program that seemed realistic—no matter if it were science fiction. I had not mentioned any direct application of our work: we were told a plausible application should be found or created. I was also advised not to put our very best ideas into the application as it would be seen by competitors—it would be safer to keep those ideas secret.

The peculiar demands of our granting system have favoured an upper class of skilled scientists who know how to raise money for a big group [3]. They have mastered a glass bead game that rewards not only quality and honesty, but also salesmanship and networking. A large group is the secret because applications are currently judged in a way that makes it almost immaterial how many of that group fail, so long as two or three do well. Data from these successful underlings can be cleverly packaged to produce a flow of papers—essential to generate an overlapping portfolio of grants to avoid gaps in funding.

Thus, large groups can appear effective even when they are neither efficient nor innovative. Also, large groups breed a surplus of PhD students and postdocs that flood the market; many boost the careers of their supervisors while their own plans to continue in research are doomed from the outset. The system also helps larger groups outcompete smaller groups, like those headed by younger scientists such as K. It is no wonder that the average age of grant recipients continues to rise [4]. Even worse, sustained success is most likely when risky and original topics are avoided and projects tailored to fit prevailing fashions—a fact that sticks a knife into the back of true research [5]. As Sydney Brenner has said, “Innovation comes only from an assault on the unknown” [6].

You know, what's really puzzling about this phenomenon is not that we are unaware of the problem—it's that we haven't done anything about it. If the system isn't working then let's fix it.

There are several innovations that could fix the problem. Peter suggests that only the best papers from a lab should be evaluated and that young investigators could be interviewed by the granting agencies to evaluate promise. Others suggest that funds could be given to departments and the departments could distribute the money in the most efficient and effective manor.

Many scientists advocate shorter grant proposals with more of an emphasis on past productivity than on what's in the actual proposal. If you've been successful in the past then you will probably be successful in the future. It's time to stop rewarding grantsmanship and start rewarding science.

---

Cody Cobb's Visit

 
We had a fun visit with Cody Cobb the other day when he flew up to Toronto for a free lunch [Lunch with a winner].

I mentioned that Cody was a blogger but I didn't link to his blog because I wasn't sure if he wanted to be identified as the author of 90% True. Well, apparently he doesn't care, 'cause he's posted two articles about his visit to Toronto.

In Canadian Lunch he reviews a lot of the things we talked about, including our lunch debates with Alex Palazzo. In Science Blogging he covers the discussion about the value and purpose of science blogging. They're both excellent reads—pay him a visit.

---

What Should Scientific Organizations Say about Religion?

 
The poll has closed and here are the results.


A slight majority say that organizations like AAAS (amd NAS) should say nothing about the compatibility of science and religion. I think that's the correct choice.

What's surprising (to me) is that 31% of you said these organizations should say that science and religion are incompatible. I believe this is true but I still think that scientific organizations should not say anything. They don't speak for their members on this topic.

I'm glad to see that only 14% of Sandwalk readers support the unsupportable statement that science and religion are compatible.

---

Mixing Science, Religion, and Politics

 
The first draft of the human genome sequence was announced on June 26, 2000. There was a huge press conference in the East Room of the White House with Craig Venter, President Bill Clinton, and Francis Collins. British Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared via videolink from London.

The event is recounted on pages 2 & 3 of Francis Collins' book The Language of God. It's worth recalling because it reminds Americans of what they can expect if Collins were to become head of NIH.

But the most important part of his speech that most attracted public attention jumped from the scientific perspective to the spiritual. "Today," [Clinton] said, "we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift."

Was I, a rigorously trained scientist, taken aback at such a blatantly religious reference by the leader of the free world at a moment such as this? Was I tempted to scowl or look at the floor in embarrassment? No, not at all. In fact I had worked closely with the president's speechwriter in the frantic days just prior to this announcement, and had strongly endorsed the inclusion of this paragraph. When it came time for me to add a few words of my own, I echoed this sentiment: "It's a happy day for the world. It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."

What was going on here? Why would a president and a scientist, charged with announcing a milestone in biology and medicine, feel compelled to invoke a connection with God? Aren't the scientific and spiritual worldviews antithetical, or shouldn't they at lest avoid appearing in the East Room together? What were the reasons for invoking God in those two speeches? Was this poetry? Hypocrisy? A cynical attempt to curry favor from believers, or to disarm those who might criticize this study of the human genome as reducing humankind to machinery? No. Not for me. Quite the contrary, for me the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship.

---

Francis Collins and the National Institutes of Health (USA)

 
After many years of service as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), Francis Collins resigned from NIH last year. His reasons for quitting were widely reported in the media. Here's the press release from NIH [Francis S. Collins to Step Down as Director of National Human Genome Research Institute].

Dr. Collins explained that his decision to step down as leader of NHGRI came after much personal deliberation. "My decision was driven by a desire for an interval of time dedicated to writing, reflection and exploration of other professional opportunities in the public or private sectors," he said. "The demands and responsibilities of directing an NIH institute do not allow the time commitment necessary for this. In addition, I may need greater latitude than my current position allows to pursue other potential positions of service without encountering any possible conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived."

We now know that the "real or perceived" conflict of interest relates to the creation of The BioLogos Foundation. Here's the mission statement.

Dr. Francis Collins established The BioLogos Foundation to address the escalating culture war between science and faith in the United States. On one end of the spectrum, “new atheists” argue that science removes the need for God. On the other end, religious fundamentalists argue that the Bible requires us to reject much of modern science. Many people - including scientists and believers in God - do not find these extreme options attractive.

BioLogos represents the harmony of science and faith. It addresses the central themes of science and religion and emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life. To communicate this message to the general public and add to the ongoing dialog, The BioLogos Foundation created BioLogos.org.

Funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, the Web site is a reliable source of scholarly thought on contemporary issues in science and faith that highlights the compatibility of modern science with traditional Christian beliefs. BioLogos.org features responses to a myriad of questions received by Collins, author of The Language of God, Karl Giberson, author of Saving Darwin, and Darrel Falk, author of Coming to Peace With Science since the publication of their books.

It's pretty obvious why running such a foundation is not compatible with a leadership role at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

That's what makes this report in Scientific American so disturbing [Former Human Genome Project leader Francis Collins likely next NIH director].

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will likely bring on geneticist Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, as its new director, Bloomberg News reported on Saturday.

The agency, which has been run by acting director Raynard Kington since October 2008 after Elias Zerhouni stepped down, is in late stages of screening Collins, noted Bloomberg.

Fortunately, we can be confident that the rumor isn't true. With Barack Obama as President of the United States, the appointment of someone like Francis Collins should never happen. Things are going to change in Washington.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the rumor were true and the new head of NIH did not have the enthusiastic support of most scientists? That's the sort of thing that happened under the previous President.

---

Michael Bliss - Anti-Science Conservative

 
Michael Bliss is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto. He has written some excellent books on the history of science, notably a book about the discovery of insulin.

Bliss has always been a small-c conservative and many of his opinion pieces have supported conservative policies.

On Thursday, May 14th, Michael Bliss entered the debate on Canadian science funding [Michael Bliss: Anti-Harper campaign politicizes research to the detriment of science]. His main point is that Canadian scientists are whiners and complainers who should keep their mouths shut because they are damaging the reputation of science in Canada.

It’s time that responsible leaders of the Canadian science and research communities began thinking of ways to cool down their more hot-headed colleagues. The strategy of declaring war on a government because some of its policies are temporarily inconvenient and vexatious can generate cheap short-term applause and support in some quarters, but in the long run tags its adherents as unreliable and unworthy, or worse. Eventually doors get shut in their faces, and/or they’re left to wither on the vine.

It’s a sad way to tarnish what often has been and still could be one of the success stories of Canadian public policy.

I've never been a fan of Michael Bliss but this diatribe goes way over the line. Scientists are justifiably criticizing a science policy that they feel is doing great damage to Canada's ability to be competitive in the 21st century. Michael Bliss is saying that scientists should not speak out when they disagree with government policy. That's a strange position for someone who has made a reputation of speaking out on controversial topics.

But it's at least consistent with conservative thinking.

Michael Bliss thinks it's OK for governments to direct scientific research. He thinks the only important kind of research is that which directly benefits business and consumers. Applied research and technology is "accountable."

By and large, Canadian researchers have not had a bad inning in recent years. Some observers think that the research community has actually had an easy ride, never having been forced to show exactly what benefits are being generated for the Canadian people by the money given researchers. If the government of Canada ever decided, for example, that this country should lead the world in demanding hard accountability from researchers who live off taxpayers’ largesse, today’s discontents would seem like extremely small beer.

I suppose that's why Bliss admires Banting and Best and the others who discovered and produced insulin. I suppose he hates those scientists who discovered recombinant DNA technology to help with their curiosity motivated research even though it led directly to the production of human insulin—a far more effective form than the old insulin from pigs.

The main product of research is knowledge and knowledge is always of more benefit to the Canadian people than ignorance. During his many decades at the University of Toronto, Michael Bliss and his students contributed to that knowledge base in many ways. Some of the work in history that he published was paid for by research grants. I wonder if he can meet the demand of "hard accountability" that he demands of others? With respect to his own scholarly work, I wonder if he can explain "exactly what benefits are being generated for the Canadian people"?

(Read Commentary strives to politicize science funding debate on Researcher Forum for a similar perspective on Michael Bliss.)

---

The Problems with Research Funding in Canada

 
Jim Turk is Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). He is a staunch defender of university research, especially curiosity motivated research.

In Tuesday's Globe and Mail, Turk explains why current government policy is wrong. It puts too much emphasis on research that directly helps business and not enough on fundamental research [Get the state out of the labs of the nation].

He also makes a point that needs emphasis. The Presidents of Canada's granting agencies are getting into bed with the government. They increasingly see themselves as obedient pawns of the government and not as independent agents who will stand up for what they believe in regardless of the consequences.

Our federal government has acknowledged that politicians should not try to pick winners and losers in the economic marketplace, but persists in trying to do so in the marketplace of ideas. In the 2007 and 2008 budgets, the federal government dictated where new money for granting councils could be spent - ruling out the vast majority of researchers' work. In the 2009 budget, it restricted new social science humanities graduate scholarships to students "focused on business-related degrees."

That research funding has become politicized was also evident when the presidents of the three granting councils - the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research - failed to object when their budgets were cut, and when Genome Canada's president expressed concerns, then quickly retracted them. Canada's research funding agencies should be made arms' length from government.

---

[Hat Tip: T. Ryan Gregory: Genomicron]

Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships

 
There are 166 winners of Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships. Of these, 34 are from the University of Toronto and several will be in the labs of my close colleagues. Congratulations to all the winners.

The scholarships will be administered by the three granting councils and each one is worth an astonishing $50,000 per year. That means that these scholarships amount to twice the level of funding of a typical graduate student at my university.

There's no sound logic behind awarding such a sum. T. Ryan Gregory points out that if the scholarships had been for $25,000 per year, the excess could have funded 73 research grants at an average of $34,000 per year. I agree that this money could have been better spent.

---

Gary Goodyear Explains Canada's Science Policy

 
Gary Goodyear, you might recall, is Canada's Minster of State (Science and Technology). He is a chiropractor who doesn't accept the scientific view of evolution.

The policy of the Conservative Party is to cut funding to the major granting agencies (SSHRC, NSERC, CIHR) by $148 million over the next few years. This will have a disastrous effect on basic research in Canada.

At a recent meeting in Washington (USA), Goodyear explained how Conservative ideology is driving science funding [Canadian research may hold key to ‘clean coal:' Goodyear].

Only days after Mr. Obama delighted America's scientific community by saying the “days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over” – a clear reference to the eight years George W. Bush was president – Mr. Goodyear made a point of claiming Canada's Conservative government took science seriously.

“Canada sees the role of science and technology in contributing to global economic growth and recovery,” he said. “We know that the jobs of tomorrow are found in the discoveries of today, so we look at research funding as investment — investment in innovation, in scientific discovery, in job creation, and as a hedge against tough economic conditions.”

But he also said the government's role in funding science went beyond backing pure research. Ottawa's science spending reflects “our government's emphasis on commercializing research and improving the processes that help get innovative ideas to the marketplace,” Mr. Goodyear told a two-day AAAS forum on science and technology.

“Commercialization is one area in which public policy makers play a huge role in enabling the private sector to do what it does best — turn knowledge into innovation, and innovation into greater wealth and well-being for people.”

I wish I were an American. President Obama seems to know the difference between science and technology and he seems to understand where real creativity and innovation can be found—it's not in technology development, it's in curiosity motivated basic research.

---

Should Scientific Organizations Advocate Accommodationism?

 
John Wilkins has started an interesting debate on the topic of Science and religion for individuals and organisations. He starts with a couple of multiple choice questions.

Get on over to Evolving Thoughts and share your evolving thoughts on the subject. Meanwhile you can answer my own multiple choice question in the sidebar.

What should scientific organizations like AAAS and NAS say about religion?

a) that religion and science are compatible
b) that religion and science are incompatbile
c) nothing

---

Bob McDonald Explains why Canadian Scientists Are Upset

 
Bob McDonald is the host of Quirks & Quarks on CBC radio. He has a blog and here's part of what he posted on Friday [Another Earth Day, Canadian scientists concerned].

While people around the globe celebrate the beauty of our planet on Earth Day, April 22nd, scientists in Canada are concerned that government funding is heading in the wrong direction to provide sensible solutions to environmental problems. More than 2000 scientists from across the country have signed an open letter to Prime Minister Harper and the Leader of the Opposition, expressing concerns over cuts to basic science research. It’s basic science that takes the pulse of the planet.

The scientists are concerned that government money is overlooking vital areas. For example, the current Conservative budget allocates $2 billion for university infrastructure - in other words, renovations to aging buildings. But those funds come with a catch. They must be matched with private funding, something everyone is having trouble finding during these tough economic times. Keeping roofs on buildings is important, but if there are no scientists to work in them, what’s the point?

The Canada Foundation for Innovation, a major source of science funding, did receive $740 million, but it also comes with that match-funding hook. The other funding agencies, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, have had their budgets cut back, while Genome Canada was essentially ignored.

The rest of the government’s support for science is going towards the automotive industry, carbon sequestration, biofuels and scholarships for business students. In other words, applied science is taking precedent over basic science.

While we do need both, when it comes to the environment, the two types of science are often at loggerheads.

Politicians like to support applied science because it leads to jobs and products, such as more efficient cars or new wireless devices. Basic science, on the other hand, can’t promise an immediate economic return because it simply looks at nature to understand how things work - and more importantly these days, how things are changing. As we’ve seen with climate change, basic scientists have been out in the field watching ice caps disappear before their eyes, carbon dioxide levels rise and climate patterns shift. At the same time, those dealing with the technology at the heart of the problem resist the basic science to keep the current systems in place.

---

[Hat Tip: T. Ryan Gregory]

Sign the Open Letter

 
Are you a Canadian scientist who is upset about cuts to research funding by the current government? Read the Open letter to the Prime Minister and Leader of the opposition and add your name to the list of over 2000 scientists.

---