Maybe they should ask the Coca Cola company for funding. They like using polar bears and artic stuff in advertizing. It can be the CocaCola Research Centre for the Arctic. Great PR and cheap advertising.
Feds cut funding to key science facility
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Maybe they should ask the Coca Cola company for funding. They like using polar bears and artic stuff in advertizing. It can be the CocaCola Research Centre for the Arctic. Great PR and cheap advertising.
and the David Suzuki Hilton right next to the airstrip with polar bear tours offered by Brewsters. Proud Corporate Sponsors of the WWF.
Sierra Club funds lots of research, they don't conduct it themselves though. A good example is a research project led by Patricia Chow-Frasier of McMaster University which is examining the impacts of changes to the hydrology and coastal biodiversity in Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
Greenpeace on the other hand is far more activist orientated. They want publicity.
There's a big difference though between the type of research funded by NGO's, and that funded through public funds paying civil service scientists. The biggest is that with NGO's, the funding is not regular. It's difficult to plan and maintain long-term research when the funding is not known in advance. That is also a problem with changing governments, but generally a department will have responsibilities and mandates, so the funds will be at a lower risk of being withdrawn.
A point that most commentators on this subject will frequently miss, is that having stable funding allows a research entity to more easily go after additional funding. If you have a lab, with researchers and infrastructure in place, the funding that pays for that makes it far easier to apply for grants from say, Sierra Club. That means additional science can be conducted. As new funding comes in, you could think of it as being more efficient, because there is a baseline in place already to maintain what is there. New funds can buy new equipment, which can make even more research possible to conduct.
Where it gets muddy is when it comes time to publish results, and ownership of results. That can be challenging. For example, I have been speaking with researchers at the local veterinary college about graduate work, which my company will pay for. I work for a large corporation that considers intellectual property to be a large part of the value of the corporation, as all pharmaceuticals do. As a Master's student I would be expected to publish some papers. But I would like to work on basic science that would help our company to be more efficient. What ends up happening, is the goals of the degree granting institution do not always align with the goals of the company I work for.
That is no less true for projects funded with public money, and outside money. There are protocols in place but it can be so daunting to align all the parts that sometimes a worthwhile project just won't get done. Some food for thought anyways. I'm obviously pro-funding when it comes to science...all science.
Also, I think I should add, a major goal of Harper has been to expand Canada's presence in the North. Maintaining that research station and potentially adding new work would have gone a long way towards that goal. In 2007, Harper said of the Arctic, "Use it or lose it" when speaking of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.
How about a peek at the daily highs and lows over that 7 yr period, that may explain why it is being downsized. An unmanned station could supply that sort of data as can a satellite.
Nobody is going to steal it lol
So you think it's just a weather station? Interesting. But very wrong.
So you'd rather spend billions of dollars to put a satellite in orbit? For all the tracking and research that was done at that station, you would need a very sophisticated satellite...
You don't watch the news much do you? Read about Hans Island.
Another key point here is that the 2011 federal budget committed $35 million for centres of excellence like PEARL, and the funding has never shown up. This isn't the only project that's suffered because of that, I know there was one about monitoring the oil sands for environmental impacts, and one on the east coast about monitoring heavy metals, mostly mercury, in the environment. I think the explanation's perfectly simple, really: the federal government is de-funding research it's ideologically opposed to.
It's difficult to come to any other conclusion than that. But hey, at least they're funding more MBA's....
Better question"What does Suzuki have to do with science."
So if the international science group wants this facility so much why don't their governments step up to the plate and hand over some cold hard cash to keep it operating?
But right now the goal of the staff is to keep as many highly paid government employees working there. You think this doesn't taint the results?
Either way we should have NO long term debt and never a deficit.
I was thinking of existing satellites rather than launch a new on that would be 100 times the cost of running the station. Rent it out for the next meeting of the elites, $1B in security costs saved, perhaps we should look at useless spending first. One meeting up there and it would pay for 100 years of operating costs. (with many times that left over)
This is just something cooky conservatives like to say.
It's like the 'get a job' of the 90s.
You're conflating paying good money for talent with wanting highly paid employees. Unlike CEO's, scientists don't get bonuses for failing... Not the same thing at all. And no, paying good money for good scientists does not taint the results, it's the opposite in fact.
Which satellite(s) do you have in mind to replace the work? You think it's like renting a car? Satellites have missions, they are put in orbit for a purpose, and teams on the ground use them. They are not for rental.
Does the data they were getting not support the global warming senerio, that could get it shut down all by itself if the 'warming trend' is a manufactured conclusion that is to be followed despite the hard data
Not at all. This is about the needs and wants of taxpayers vs the cravings of government unions. Which brings us back to my original question. If this research is so valued by the international community why are other countries not contributing cash?
Because they have their own research programs, and their own facilities that they contribute with...
Sure. The product of science is a public good. We all benefit when the understanding of the universe is made more complete. If an American researcher funded by the NIH finds a cure for some disease, it's not just Americans that benefit. If a German researcher creates a new plastic that degrades within days in sunlight, it's not just Germans who benefit.
This research station was linked to a larger international network that track air quality...that benefits more than just Canadians. Continual measurements are important. There were only four people up there year-round to maintain the equipment...
Now is not the time for spending cuts: study
OTTAWA—Given the fragile economic recovery and the weak job market, now is not the time for a sharp turn to spending cuts, says a study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).
“It would be a huge mistake to significantly tighten the fiscal screws,” says the study’s author, economist Andrew Jackson. “While debt has risen due to the Great Recession, there will be a major human and economic cost if deficits are eliminated before a real recovery has been achieved.”
The study points out that debt in Canada—even after two years of stimulus—is still at very low levels compared to other countries, and compared to the mid-1990s. It warns against repeating the major spending cuts of the 1990s, which shredded social programs and public services.
“Cuts will shrink rather than raise our economic potential. We need to maintain high rates of public and private investment to boost our future rate of growth,” Jackson says.
Balancing the books can be done without spending cuts or raising taxes: deficits and debt will shrink rapidly so long as interest rates are lower than the rate of economic growth and interest rates are at historically low levels today.
Once the economy has recovered, the report recommends changes in taxation in order to address the small structural deficit and to meet the costs of an ageing population.
Now is not the time for spending cuts: study | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
OTTAWA—Given the fragile economic recovery and the weak job market, now is not the time for a sharp turn to spending cuts, says a study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).
“It would be a huge mistake to significantly tighten the fiscal screws,” says the study’s author, economist Andrew Jackson. “While debt has risen due to the Great Recession, there will be a major human and economic cost if deficits are eliminated before a real recovery has been achieved.”
The study points out that debt in Canada—even after two years of stimulus—is still at very low levels compared to other countries, and compared to the mid-1990s. It warns against repeating the major spending cuts of the 1990s, which shredded social programs and public services.
“Cuts will shrink rather than raise our economic potential. We need to maintain high rates of public and private investment to boost our future rate of growth,” Jackson says.
Balancing the books can be done without spending cuts or raising taxes: deficits and debt will shrink rapidly so long as interest rates are lower than the rate of economic growth and interest rates are at historically low levels today.
Once the economy has recovered, the report recommends changes in taxation in order to address the small structural deficit and to meet the costs of an ageing population.
Now is not the time for spending cuts: study | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
