Judging by the reaction reported in this newspaper under the headline \u201cPM
urged to restore science funds,\u201d you'd think the federal budget had
devastated Canadian research funding. More than 2,000 researchers signed
an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper protesting against a $148-
million reduction for three federal agencies that finance research at Canadian
universities.

An analysis by Re$earch Infosource, titled \u201cCanada's Top Research
Universities Report,\u201d examines sponsored research at 71 Canadian
universities. During fiscal 2006-07, total research income from public and
private sources increased by about $200-million to $5.8-billion. \u201cResearch
intensity,\u201d i.e. average sponsored research income for the approximately
40,000 full-time faculty, was $146,600.

So how does this data square with that open letter painting a desperate
picture of \u201ca huge step backward\u201d and \u201cscrambling to identify budget cuts
for their labs, while worrying about the future of their graduate students?\u201d
The answer lies in the great inconvenient truth about the culture of Canada's
research universities. A big part of university research dollars are spent on
esoteric academic-interest research that doesn't have the slightest chance of
yielding any real value to society, and the vast majority of research papers
aren't read by anyone except a few colleagues sharing the same academic
interest.

Read any university annual report and you'll see \u201cresearch funds attracted\u201d
near the top of the highlights. This is supposed to reflect the quality of the
faculty, and that may well be true for a few high-profile stars. The report may
also highlight examples of successful research achievements. It's
encouraging to see these, but for every researcher whose work has captured
attention thanks to sheer merit, there are hundreds of other research
projects where a proper results assessment is never done.

In pointing this out, I know I risk being accused of failing to understand that important breakthroughs occur from basic research that has no predictable goal. I acknowledge that to be true, but on the other hand, not every project can or should be financed. Choices need to made, and outcomes need to be independently measured.

Imagine how long a private business would last if it measured itself primarily
on \u201cinvestor funds attracted\u201d rather than the return resulting from
investment of those dollars. Companies need to make choices between
competing projects, and investors need to get audited reports on results.
Shouldn't taxpayers be entitled to the same level of accountability?