Canadian research funding: Introduction

Clin Invest Med 1997;20(4):279

After four decades of unquestioned federal support for science under the broad justification of superpower competition, the scientific community now finds its long-term benefits evaluated against short-term goals. . . . Our long-term future depends on citizens understanding and appreciating the role of science in our society. No panel report, no unambiguous example and no well-connected lobbyist can make these arguments for us. In the next generation, we will need not only scientists who are experts in subspecialties, but also those with a broad understanding of science and a basic literacy in economics, international affairs and policy-making. In the end, our greatest threat may not be the scientific illiteracy of the public, but the political illiteracy of scientists.¹

At the retreat, the opinion was strongly expressed that all career scientists, not just clinician scientists, were in jeopardy, and that the issue of how to increase research funding in Canada must be everyone's highest priority.

Reports were presented by Dr. Claude Roy (who writes from a national perspective) and Dr. Cecil Yip (who relates the experiences of the University of Toronto). The principal focus of the discussion groups was how to establish strategies to increase funding. The third position paper in this section describes the lobbying experiences and recommendations of Dr. Richard Murphy.

References