Elections (fwd)

[Ric Knowles]

Richard,

Thanks for forwarding this. I wonder if it's worth letting someone at
HSSFC know that they may not be best representing all of us--me, anyway--
in co-sponsoring/supporting certain sections of the CCR Elections
statement, sections which I excerpt below:

> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The federal government has called the elections for June 2, and we would
> like to provide you with an 'Election Statement' regarding research issues.
> The Federation is active member of the Steering Committee of Canadian
> Consortium for Research that has prepared this statement. Members of the
> Consortium are being invited to distribute this Election Statement to their
> own membership and the Federation would like to encourage you to raise the
> issues listed and explained in this statement when you meet with candidates. 
> 
> We would also invite you to disseminate this message further to ensure that
> research issues are high on the candidates' agenda. 
> 
> Please contact the Federation if you have questions or need information:
> (613) 238-6112, extension 306 (Thérèse De Groote) or extension 302 (Marcel
> Lauzière)
> 
> ********************************************************************
> 
> ELECTION STATEMENT
> 
> 
> Increasingly, the research community is working together to identify gaps to
> be filled and to provide consistent advice to government - such messages are
> being heard and science and research are beginning to receive more attention.
> 
> This statement provides you with clear messages to impress upon your local
> candidates - with all the competing demands for government funding, they
> must be convinced that developing the Canadian science and research
> enterprise through increased support is in the country's best interests.
> They must hear this from as many of you as possible.

I find the focus on "science and research" a little non-inclusive here,
and I'm uncomfortable with the 18th-century naturalist assumptions behind
identifying "gaps" to be "filled"--for, presumably, useful pracital
strategic (and goal-directed) research.

> 
> POSITIVE STEPS
> 
> Through the following measures contained in the federal budget of February,
> 1997, the government has demonstrated A commitment to post-secondary
> education and to investing in Canadian research capacity and science and
> technology initiatives:
> 
> *  The creation of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, a fund for the
> renewal of research infrastructure in universities, hospitals and research
> institutes
> 
> *  On-going support for the Networks of Centres of Excellence program, which
> bring together university and private sector researchers
> 
> *  Continued funding for the Industrial Research Assistance Program,
> designed to make expertise in government laboratories and universities
> available to small and medium-sized companies
> 
> *    Tax and repayment changes to assist students - representing investments in
> people

Why does this section identify all these wonderful things (some of which,
such as Centres of Excellence, and Innovation, I find more than a little
problematic) with "the government"--which makes it all sound very
pro-Liberal--while the next section (below) on Negative Steps has
strategically deployed the passive voice in order not to identify the
agents of these terrible acts, or associate them with any political party?

 > 
> NEGATIVE STEPS
> 
> Reductions of more than $4 billion since 1994-95 in the transfers to the
> provinces have placed universities in dire straits with respect to paying
> for operating costs.  This situation has negatively affected the ability of
> universities to retain their best faculty members, maintain their physical
> plant and facilities, sustain their libraries, and provide even minimal
> technical support for research.  Concurrent reductions in granting council
> budgets have compounded the problems.
> 

> FUTURE NEEDS
> 
> Science informs policy and decision making.  To realize this interchange,
> Canada needs a comprehensive S&T plan which expands on the federal S&T
> Strategy, launched in March, 1996.  Major components should include:

Excuse me? SCIENCE informs policy and decision making? S&T strategy? And
the rest of us? What do we influence?
> 
> *  Canada must compete effectively in the global economy.  To do so, our
> investment in S&T, currently at the bottom end of all G-7 countries, must be
> significantly increased.

This "Canada must compete effectively in the global [aka multinational]
economy" crap, to me, is the worst sory of neo-conservative B.S. (and
S&Techno-B.S. at that).
> 
> *  Direct support of basic and applied research in universities through the
> three research granting councils is dropping significantly - too much
> potential is being left by the wayside.  Support of this research must be
> increased and stabilized at these new levels.  

Again, note the passive voice ("is dropping"--like the gently rain from
heaven? Who's dropping it?), and the focus on "basic and applied
research,"--a focus that is part of the problem, in my view.
> 
> *  Transfers to the provinces for indirect costs of post-secondary
> institutions have been drastically cut.  The means of supporting or covering
> these indirect costs of research at universities must be devised.

Passive voice: who's the villain?
> 
> *  Research in the social sciences and humanities is critical to our
> understanding of the social, cultural and economic challenges facing Canada.
> Together with the medical and natural sciences, research in these fields
> will enable Canadians to adapt to the demands of a new knowledge-based
> society.  Strong and stable support for the social sciences and humanities
> will enable Canada to meet these objectives.

Again, I find it offensive that the HSSFC supports this focus on
the rhetoric of "challeges" and on the B.S. about "a new
knowledge-based society." Really? 

Am I alone in thinking that this buying into corporatist, scientist, and
neo-conservative rhetoric is a problem?

Ric