Federal funding and university science: lessons learned from lobbying government
Richard A. Murphy, PhD
Clin Invest Med 1997;20(4):289-93.
See also:
Dr. Murphy is Professor of Neurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University, and Director, Montreal Neurological Institute, Montreal, Que.
Scientists have a responsibility to educate the government and the public about the importance of science for the public good. Reductions in federal research funding affect all academic scientists, but clinician scientists often fare the worst. Not uncommonly, because of the time commitments required for their clinical responsibilities, they lose out to basic scientists in stiff competitions for limited research dollars. Basic scientists are in their laboratories full-time, they have the time to keep up with and develop the latest technologies, and they can accumulate and financially support large research teams.
When a clinician scientist fails to obtain or renew research funding, it is often the first step in forcing him or her out of the laboratory. When this occurs, everyone loses. Clinician scientists forfeit the exciting career opportunity of combining hands-on research and clinical service, basic scientists are deprived of the critical input and perspective of clinical colleagues, and medical research is deprived of invaluable interactions and assets.
Cutbacks in Canadian government support for medical research have been crippling. In an effort to reduce the national budget, government has slashed funding for the granting councils that fund university research. For example, the budget of the MRC was reduced 14% between 1994 and 1998, which, when adjusted for inflation, is an effective reduction of approximately 25% in constant dollars. These cutbacks occurred at a time when research funding in most other G7 countries increased significantly, including an almost 40% increase in funding for the NIH in the United States.
To accommodate to these reductions, Canadian granting councils have been forced to choose between funding a handful of grants at levels judged suitable by the grants committees, or cutting back all grants to inadequate funding levels to keep people in the system. At the MRC, the chosen course has evolved to somewhere in the middle: priority scores of funded grants have risen to their highest levels ever, grant allocations are being cut well below the amounts recommended by critical peer-review committees, and fewer scientists, basic and clinical, are being funded.
Another short-sighted movement has also begun to gain strength in Canada. Recently, some in government began advocating the idea that business should shoulder a significant share of the costs of funding basic medical research. This idea arose, in part, because savvy venture capital funds have recognized the potential for economic growth of medical research and have provided significant funds for start-up companies to exploit that research. These funds are a welcome addition, but they cannot be expected to make up for government shortfalls. Furthermore, not all medical research is necessarily good business, for a number of reasons, not least of which are the slow pace and meandering direction that pure basic research often follows. For those reasons, venture capital monies are not accessible to all scientists.
Government cutbacks and the emerging tendency to pass the buck to business prompted a number of us, beginning in 1996 and acting through the Canadian Council for Health Research, the Canadian Association of Neuroscience and the Networks of Centres of Excellence in Neuroscience, to launch a national lobbying campaign. (The Canadian Council for Health Research is a coalition of research institutes and voluntary health agencies founded in 1996. For a complete list of members, see the end of this article. The Canadian Association of Neuroscience sponsored a national advertisement urging government to increase its funding for university-based research; thereafter, its members across Canada, in conjunction with members of the Network of Centres of Excellence in Neurosciences, aggressively contributed to the campaign by meeting with MPs from their ridings.) The general goals of the campaign were to convince the offices of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Finance Minister Paul Martin of government's responsibility to fund medical research, even in difficult financial times. We also wanted to educate government on the folly of relying on business to replace government as a major funding source for university science. Above all, we wanted to emphasize that a vibrant university-based research community is essential for Canada's intellectual and economic well-being. Our immediate goal was to encourage government to rescind its cutbacks and to increase research funding in its budget presented in 1997. It should be emphasized that ours was not the only national lobbying effort. A number of academic organizations across Canada mobilized as well and were very effective in attracting government and public attention.
What follows is summary of some of the lessons we learned in the course of our efforts. However, caveat emptor, for a number of reasons. We began this campaign as novices, and information that was new to us may well be obvious to seasoned lobbyists. Also, our impressions are only that and are based largely upon nonquantitative, subjective and anecdotal data. In addition, government did not rescind its cutbacks to the Canadian granting councils, as we and others asked, so we cannot claim that our efforts were completely effective. However, we took some comfort in learning that the federal government did introduce, in its most recent budget, measures that favour university science, including an $800 million science infrastructure fund called the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, increased tax breaks for philanthropists supporting science, and the establishment of a permanent Centres of Excellence Program aimed at linking university science with business development.
In no precise order, 6 of the lessons we learned are as follows:
Lesson 1: Understand the political realities, including the pressures on government. Early in our campaign, we benefited enormously from a short but effective lesson in lobbying given by one of the people we were ultimately trying to reach, Finance Minister Paul Martin. The lesson came in response to a speech that I gave at the University of Calgary.1 The speech precipitated a series of articles in the Montreal Gazette25 that caught the minister's eye. He called my office and, in addition to stating his strong personal support for university-based science, offered a number of observations that increased our understanding of the pressures facing government and helped focus our efforts. For example:
- He pointed out that his office was receiving "zero pressure" from the scientific community to increase scientific funding. Without pressure from the constituency most affected, it was very difficult politically for his office to generate government support for our requests. He welcomed the information that our group was planning a series of articles in national and international newspapers and journals aimed at pressuring his office. He observed that pressure from the public is an essential element in good government, that it educates legislators and helps set priorities.
- In difficult economic times, when people's jobs are in jeopardy, the funding of science is often perceived as part of an elitist's agenda far removed from economic growth. In the minds of many, science funding is not as important as the jobs that come from constructing roads, bridges and sewers. For science to be valued by Canada's public in such an era, he recommended that connections be made to economic value and job creation.
- Members of Parliament (MPs), who represent the interests of people in their ridings, had not identified science funding as a priority. Therefore, it was essential that scientists educate MPs about the economic importance of science, especially MPs representing ridings containing university centres. Since requests tabled by only 1 or 2 MPs are rarely successful, it was essential to identify 20 or 25 MPs who would argue for the same issue. Working together, they would likely have an impact.
In short, the finance minister's suggestions helped us to craft the central elements in our lobbying campaign: establishing a network of scientists across the country willing to become involved in lobbying, educating MPs as to the importance of science funding to their constituencies and Canada, stressing the economic importance of research, including its impact on job creation, and explaining to the public how science can improve their lives, including the economic benefits of basic research.
Lesson 2: Do not underestimate our legislators. In Canada, as in many other countries, a common syndrome seems to be to elect representatives to the federal government and then to complain about their supposed poor performance. Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts has said that "Voters see politicians as corrupt, lazy and ineffective. But the public isn't so hot either."6
There needs to be an intermediate step between electing officials and complaining about them; namely, informing them about the changing needs of their constituencies. We learned that MPs welcome that input. They have multiple constituencies, much on their plates to digest and little time to do it, much like medical researchers themselves. In contacting MPs across the country, medical scientists, with few exceptions, were genuinely impressed with the quality of the people they met. Without exception, the MPs were bright, interested, eager for information, candid and willing to share their guidance and advice. Their input was invaluable to our efforts. In addition, a number of MPs recommended lobbying strategies, including influential people who should be contacted with specific messages. In many cases, the MPs also welcomed being kept informed of the scientists' progress and needs.
Lesson 3: Create constituencies with a critical mass. The 2 constituencies that turned out to be vital to the progress of our lobbying efforts were the scientists themselves and the MPs.
Once contacted, scientists were eager to participate in the lobbying effort, despite their busy schedules. The program appeared to tap in to a collective frustration about inadequate government funding. Many had felt this frustration, but few had acted on it. Most scientists welcomed the organization and strategies that others were suggesting and responded by providing additional information that became invaluable to the overall effort. As this information accumulated, it was circulated nationally by electronic mail, which was an ideal way of keeping people informed and momentum and enthusiasm high. In this regard, the Canadian Association of Neuroscience established a central email server at the University of Calgary that provided approximately 2000 members of the organization sometimes daily updates on the progress of the campaign.
Establishing a constituency of MPs was a strategy suggested not only by Finance Minister Martin, but also by a number of MPs, in a related contxWe learned that an important event in the life of legislation is the annual caucus of the party in the power. We also learned that, at these caucuses, MPs are understandably reluctant to spend political capital on issues that will that fall flat and not be supported by others. Therefore, networks of like-minded MPs who will stand unified behind new legislative ideas and programs need to be formed. Consequently, in preparation for the Liberal caucus meeting, we identified MPs willing to raise the issue of science funding as an agenda item and those who would agree to support the issue once it was tabled.
Lesson 4: Use the media effectively. Before the budget was released by the federal government, a number of articles appeared in the press that convincingly argued for increased government funding of science. Several articles in the Globe and Mail7,8 gained national attention, one of which was authored by Nobel laureate Dr. John Polanyi. We co-authored an editorial in Science that attracted international attention to Canada's funding problems.9 And, in my view, the most effective piece was an advertisement in the Globe and Mail and La Presse on Jan. 28, 1997, sponsored by the Canadian Association of Universities and Colleges, that was co-signed by a number of leaders in Canadian industry. Titled "Breakthroughs Don't Just Happen. We Live In A World Where the Value of Research Is Clear," this ad won national attention and was subsequently cited by government in justifying the establishment of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. Business support for academic research provided a powerful message to government and to the public about the economic importance to Canada of a vital research community.
These articles appeared to have 2 effects: first, they enlightened government and the public that reductions in science funding were short-circuiting the future of Canada by starving its scientific community and the economic development it could generate. Second, they galvanized the scientific community and encouraged scientists to become involved in the lobbying effort.
Lesson 5: Be specific about needs and realistic about what can be obtained. In the early days of our campaign, our message to government was to simply "increase support of university-based research." However, the MPs we met strongly suggested that we define our needs precisely, in simply understood terms. Every interest group wants more money, but defining with precision how a particular request will help solve a particular need was seen as a more effective strategy. Consequently, we modified our request to ask that (1) scheduled reductions in the cutbacks for the granting councils not be implemented in their final year and (2) the budget be increased to 1994 funding levels in current dollars.
Lesson 6: Rome wasn't built in a day. Unlike in the United States, where science has hired professional firms to lobby government continuously, years in advance of the announcement of federal budgets, in Canada lobbying in support of science is in its infancy. If it is to work in Canada, science lobbying needs to be formalized as a national and year-round effort, kept perpetually on the national agenda and continually alive in the minds of legislators. Four specific strategies should be followed:
- Champions for science need to be identified in government and continually supplied with information about the state of Canadian science. Once identified, these champions need to have their efforts recognized within their political constituencies and within Canadian universities and the business community.
- Small steps made by government in support of university-based science need to be recognized, valued and applauded. In that regard, it is appropriate for Canada's scientific community to support the new programs in the 1998 federal budget that were designed to support university-based science, even though they differ from and fall short of what we asked for. We need to realize that these programs represent a starting point in a longer process in which, we hope, government will renew its support of Canadian science. Government's interest in science would have lessened considerably if the scientists who most benefit from these programs had rejected them.Perhaps these new programs were a politically acceptable way for government to respond to science's needs without compromising the fiscal principles it espouses for deficit reduction. And perhaps next year will be different and our specific needs will be met. If we are to succeed over the long term, it is essential that we establish science as a national resource and as a national asset of great importance to Canada's future.
- Pressure needs to be exerted on Canada's biomedical scientists to recognize their responsibilities to science and to Canada. In difficult economic times, they cannot expect that government will simply hand over money as their due. Rather, scientists need to take on the responsibility of working with and informing government and of convincing government of the social, intellectual and economic value of the work they do.
- Finally, and perhaps most important, scientists need to take responsibility for educating and exciting the public about the value of science, since people's perceptions play an important role in dictating government's actions. Until people truly understand how science enriches their lives, they will not pressure government to support it. The value of science needs to be linked to the public good. No one is more qualified to do this than the very people who carry it out.
Canadian Council for Health Research member organizations: the Canadian Cancer Society; Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto; Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada; Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal; John P. Robarts Research Institute, London; Loeb Medical Research Institute, Ottawa; National Cancer Institute of Canada; Montreal Neurological Institute; Research Institute of the Ottawa General Hospital; Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Toronto; The Toronto Hospital.
References
- Murphy RA. Government policy and university science: starving the golden goose. The Killam Address to the Canadian Association of Graduate Studies, Nov 1, 1996.
- Kalbfleisch J. Cuts make for stop gap science. Montreal Gazette 1996;Dec 7.
- Kalbfleisch J. Scientists stymied: fundamental research and easy target for cutbacks. Montreal Gazette 1996;Dec 7.
- Kalbfleisch J. Spreading the word: scientists need to lobby for grants. Montreal Gazette 1996;Dec 7.
- Kalbfleisch J. Japan shows pitfalls of relying on others. Montreal Gazette 1996;Dec 7.
- Bradley B. Time past, time present. A memoir. Vantage Press; 1996:xiv.
- McLennan B. Basic research yields jobs. Globe and Mail [Toronto] 1996;Dec 21.
- Polanyi JC. Private sector can't carry research. Globe and Mail [Toronto] 1997;Jan 14.
- Aguayo AJ, Murphy RA. Canada's crisis: Can business rescue science? Science 1997;275:108.
