Cutting-Edge or Cutting Back.

Clearly, science and technology are the engines that drive the new economy. However, if we are to believe the media, the science and tech knowledge of Canadians is so poor that we're falling behind the rest of the world in research and development and we'll end up as an economic basket case 

Science teachers are such a hot commodity in Canada they can work just about anywhere they please. Recently, the Council of Ministers of Education asked principals across the country whether their school's , science programs were hampered by a shortage of specialist teachers. The percentage of those reporting problems ranged from a low of 10% in British Columbia and Quebec to a high of 57% in New Brunswick. Science teacher shortages were reported by 21% of principals in Alberta, 31% in Saskatchewan, 28% in Manitoba, 34% in Ontario, 31% in Nova Scotia, 22% in Prince Edward Island, and 37% in Newfoundland. Qualified math teachers are in demand too.

Having too few qualified teachers creates a downward spiral: unqualified teachers in physics, chemistry, and mathematics won't inspire students to do well in the subjects. The result is that they won't want to specialize in science at university. And, those who do get science degrees are less inclined to move into the education field because they can find better-paying jobs in the private sector. Teaching has lost its lustre as a career choice in large part because budget cuts are making it hard for to do their jobs properly - there are too few teachers, not enough text books, support services for special needs students have been slashed, and some of the best teachers are burning out. And, according to Canada's first national science test released in 1997, many of the country's 13- and 16-year-olds have only an average grasp of science. When tested on their knowledge of science concepts, 69% of 16-year-olds performed at Level 3 or higher on a fivepoint scale of achievement; 72% of 13-year-olds were at Level 2. Another 12% of 16-year-olds and 28% of 13-year-olds were below par, able to understand only elementary science concepts. The students also showed average results on their science-inquiry and problem-solving skills. A second set of science assessments were carried out in 1999 (see scores on page 26). There are problems in the science field outside the classroom too.

The federal government has plowed hundreds of millions of dollars into science education and research. Through the Networks of Centres of Excellence, Ottawa has invested more than $550 million into research since 1989. The NCE program links the University of Toronto microelectronics lab with researchers across the country in 18 universifies, 38 industries, and three government agencies. By 1996, NCE was praised by an outside consultant as "very successful," with the best cost-benefit ratio of any university-based research program. Three new networks developed in May 2000 to coordinate research into stroke prevention, fish farming, and vaccines for cancer and infections such as AIDS. Another four networks are expected by early 2001.

Each of the networks is a collection of locations in universities, industry., and government with top researchers in a particular specialty, ranging from arthritis to telecommunications. NCE figures from 1998 show that 41 Canadian research universities are involved in the program, along with 463 companies, 44 hospitals, more than 100 agencies from federal and provincial governments, and another 200 organizations from Canada and abroad. But, government support to the networks is cut progressively, with the idea that they have to become self-sustaining. But, there are a lot of people who believe that when the government money-tap is turned off, industry won't be interested in picking up the cost of high-risk technology development.

Currently, Canada spends 1.5% of its Gross Domestic Product on research and development (R & D). This puts us in about the middle of the pack among Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. (OECD membership is restricted to countries with highly developed economies).

But, some say even our modest investment in R & D is misdirected. A study of patents shows we' re keeping up nicely in areas such as transportation, furniture, and agriculture but we're dropping way behind on biotechnology and computers. The registration of patents is seen as one measure of how innovative an economy is, lots of patents equals lots of new ideas. Countries such as Finland, Israel, and Taiwan produce more U.S. patents a year than Canada does, and their annual growth rates in patent applications are twice Canada's. From 1980 to 1994, the share of all Canadian patents in computers and communications remained about the same, while the share doubled for all patents in the U.S. Some experts think that Our relatively poor patent performance is because our universities have been chronically underfunded for 25 years. They say our brightest brains are going south because of a lack of opportunity to do cutting-edge science in Canada. But, is there a brain drain, and are we falling behind?

Quebec thinks so. In August 2000, ten companies near Quebec City sent out letters appealing to 2,000 people who moved to Ontario and the U.S. to come home. They're all new-economy companies, including high-tech, pharmaceutical, and computer finns facing a skilled-labour shortage. So, they contacted graduates from Laval University who left the province, and considered offering them such incentives as cars, homes and competitive salaries, along with a slower paced lifestyle - no rush hours, smaller city convenience, with nearby canoeing, fishing, as well as frae restaurants. The participating companies joined the project in the hope of attracting 250 of the 2,000 Quebeckers who received the letters.

The federal government also had announced plans, in October 1999, to keep Canada's top scientists at home by creating 1,200 new research positions at Canadian universities. It will cost $60 million in 2000 and $180 million by its third year: the program gives universities the money to support younger researchers who are identified by their peers as exceptional and to compete for those who have established international reputations. In dollar amounts, it meansproviding about $100,000 a year for younger scientists, and $200,000 for more established scientists. The money will cover their salaries and free them from teaching duties. Canadian universities say they lose some of their most talented graduate students to the United States where they can earn more. The new funding is expected to keep more of them here.

Two years earlier, in 1997, the picture was a little different. After four years of spending cuts, the government had dropped about 800 scientists from its research and development payroll. There was no balancing increase in research funding for universities; instead, their budgets were trimmed too. A lot of highly qualified research scientists ended up driving cabs, and professionals with PhDs lined up for entry-level research jobs. One well-known astronomer, Alan Hale, estimated that there were probably more unemployed scientists in Canada in 1997 than there were scientists in all the world a century before. Even the ones who were working often had shrinking budgets to contend with. Scientists warned that without funds for basic research, government was laying the groundwork for serious problems 10 years down the road; they believed Canada would have a hard time participating in the global economy because its pool of knowledge would have drained away. One university professor at the time pointed out that a vigorous research community inspires innovation and breeds creativity into young scientists. He added that companies closest to basic research are usually the first to benefit from its commercial spin-offs. Industry's investment in science was going up by about 5% a year, but Ottawa dropped R & D funding to the levels of the late 1980s.

The government is hoping to help change that by loosening the purse strings now.

In some cases, private donations are also coming to the rescue. In June 2000, the University of Toronto announced that it was given $100 million to expand leading-edge biomedical research and recruit top scientists from around the world to its teaching and research hospitals. The R.S. McLaughlin Foundation, set up by a pioneer Canadian carmaker, contributed $50 million, which was matched by the Ontario Innovation Trust, created by the province in 1999 to fund nonprofit research institutions. It was the largest such combined private and government donation in Canadian history. Four of the university's teaching hospitals, which will benefit from the donation, were also considering adding another $50 million to the pot. The hospitals include Hospital for Sick Children, Mount Sinai Hospital, University Health Network, and Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre.

Scientists are hoping to see more of the same.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. According to one professor at the University of Alberta there were signs, June 2000, that some provincial governments were considering bursaries for educating students specializing in some of the areas plagued by shortages. Check out any such new programs in your province.

2. Some scientists point out that industry isn't particularly interested in basic "curiosity-driven" research; companies favour applied research that turns a quicker profit. List some examples of what might fall under basic research, along with some profitable applied research projects.

FACT FILE

At the University of Alberta, of the 279 students qualifying as high-school teachers in June 2000, only eight specialized in chemistry, three in physics, and 21 in mathematics. of the 11 chemistry and physics specialists who completed their student-teacher placements, only four planned to look for jobs in Alberta.

FACT FILE

In 1999, about 46% of science teachers in anglophone schools in Ontario said the range of student abilities caused them to "limit or restrict" how they taught.

IT'S THE PROGRAM'S FAULT

Some people think one of our main problems is that computers and their software are not user-friendly enough. After all, according to one study, more than half the VCRs in the country are blinking at 12 zero zero.

That's why Carleton University in Ottawa started a project in May 2000 to study the psychology of high technology in North America, as well as the social, cultural, and ethical implications of society's increasing emphasis on advanced technology.

With all the excitement over technological breakthroughs, the industry has tended to focus more on the machines than the people using them.

As Jim Davies, vice-president of research and development for Ottawa-based Mitel, put it "... we sometimes forget people aren't evolving as quickly as technology."

MORE TESTS

In 1999, the federal government tested Canada's high school students again in science literacy. The results were made public in June 2000. The tests were written by 31,000 students across the country, divided almost equally between 13-year-olds and 16-year-olds. The provincial ranking was as follows for the older students:

% of 16-year-olds performing at expected level or better

Alberta                 85.5%
P.E.I.                  81.3
Quebec (French)         80.5
Manitoba                79.8
Saskatchewan            77.4
Quebec (English)        76.7
Manitoba (French)       76.2
Canada                  76.1
British Columbia        75.8
Nova Scotia (English)   74.6
Yukon                   74.0
Nova Scotia (French)    73.8
Newfoundland            72.7
New Brunswick           72.6
Ontario                 72.2
NB. (French)            69.4
N W.T.                  67.8
Ontario (French)        60.1
Nunavut                 23.8

Source: 1999 Report on Science Assessment, Council of Ministers of Education

Websites

Council of Ministers of Education www.cmec.ca