The 2010 Federal Budget
Submitted by Masoud Yeganegi on Thu, 04/03/2010 - 14:19
Feel free to use this space to discuss matters related to the 2010 budget and it's impact on science in Canada. Attached is a PDF of the budget for reference.
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/pdf/budget-planbudgetaire-eng.pdf
- Login to post comments
-
Organizing Committee
Mehrdad Hariri (chair)
Shiva Amiri
Nicole Arbour
Marcius Extavour
Curtis Forbes
Eric Gagne
Karen Johnstone-Hobbs
Minnie Kim
Jeffrey Kinder
Trevor McKee
Robin McLernon
Emmanuel Mongin
Anton Neschadim
Mario Rivero-Huguet
Jeff Sharom
Ilia Tikhomirov
Masoud Yeganegi
Christine Zhang
Shiva Amiri
Nicole Arbour
Marcius Extavour
Curtis Forbes
Eric Gagne
Karen Johnstone-Hobbs
Minnie Kim
Jeffrey Kinder
Trevor McKee
Robin McLernon
Emmanuel Mongin
Anton Neschadim
Mario Rivero-Huguet
Jeff Sharom
Ilia Tikhomirov
Masoud Yeganegi
Christine Zhang
Twitter (sciencepolicy)
Comments
Review of S&T programming in 2010 Budget
David Castle and I produced the chapter on "Science and Technology" for the annual "How Ottawa Spends 2010-11" volume. the full citation is:
Abstract:
Public investment in life sciences research increased at an unprecedented rate during the past decade throughout the industrialized world. Far from being an exception, Canada is a leader in large-scale investments in life sciences, particularly genomics. Important discoveries have been made in cystic fibrosis research and Huntington’s disease, as well as in agricultural and environmental science. Enabled by genomic and post-genomic research, the gains in knowledge have been impressive, but have left others wondering what socio-economic benefits are accruing. Have Canadians been the beneficiaries of public investment in science and technology because valuable new products and services are reaching markets? Have Canadians become more prosperous as technology is licensed abroad, and have public investments increased productivity and created trade surplus? A preliminary review of the data suggests otherwise, which raises a significant questions regarding the future directions of science and technology policy. Will discovery research, exemplified so well by the genomics gold rush, continue for another budget cycle? Or will strategic investments in downstream research, focusing on convergence between life sciences and other fields, represent a renewed desire to demonstrate more immediate returns on investments in research? It is widely believed that a change in strategy is afoot, perhaps resulting in new approaches to public funding life sciences. Equally, there remains the potential for a more concerted federal industrial strategy, particularly as several provinces have taken individual initiative. This chapter examines the trajectory – continuity or change – of spending in light of the March 4, 2010 federal budget.
Citation:
Phillips, P. and D. Castle. 2010. Science and technology spending: still no viable federal innovation agenda. Chapter 9 in B. Doern and C. Stoney (eds), How Ottawa Spends 2010-11: Recession, Realignment and the New Deficit Era, McGill Queen’s University Press, pp. 168-186.
Death and taxes
Quite simply, the budget negatively impacts Canada's competitive edge due to lack of support for research and development in Canada, and it's ability to train, retain and attract world-class scholars and researchers. Here are some key reasons:
1)Postdocs are not considered employees by their institutions, thus cannot receive any benefits of being gainfully employed (CPP, EI, health benefits, insurance, unionization).
2)Postdocs are not considered students by their institutions and as a result do not qualify for additional financial support such as student loans, credit lines. Moreover, postdocs must repay their outstanding student loans (often from more than 10 years of university education).
3)Postdocs are by definition doctors (mostly Ph.D’s, but some hold medical degrees as well), and are thus considered “highly qualified personnel” with several post-secondary degrees, certifications and accreditations. Starting salaries for individuals who forgo a doing a postdoc are (conservatively) more than double the typical merit-based PDF.
4)Postdocs are not considered independent researchers (“primary investigators”), thus do not qualify for research grants to support their research activities, or to draw a salary.
5)As of the new budget, due to income taxes PDFs now make about the same or less than some Ph.D students and Masters students - with scholarships from the same funding agencies.
6)Canadian funding agencies set their postdoctoral stipend levels on the assumption that postdoc stipends are tax free.
A second announcement in the budget was an initiative to create unprecedented PDF fellowships of $70 000. While commendable, these will only be available to the top ~2% of postdocs in the coming years. What about the other 98%? What about the current postdocs who are ineligible to apply to these new fellowships?
Here are some things you can do to help make a difference:
1) Get informed:
http://sites.google.com/site/canadapostdoc/on-taxes
2) Sign the petition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/canadapostdoc/
3)Write your MP:
CAPS drafted letter template
4) Join the Facebook group
CAPS facebook page
5) Pass this information along to other post-docs, supervisors, university officials, funding agencies, etc...
So where do the scientists come from .....?
Aren't schools part of the equation that leads young learners to engage in science learning, to be science literate (more importantly science wise) and to seek out careers in science related fields ?
Canada continues to miss out on accessing young minds that potentially could find great satisfaction in pursuing science related careers and life paths.
Some facts (some anectodal but also seen in the science education literature):
1. Almost all the middle and secondary school science teachers I train/educate have never engaged in what I would call scientific investigation (though I have had a few MSc's in biochemistry/genetics who provide tales of their experience that is great "grist" for discussions concerning the nature of science, valid knowledge etc...). When I do talk with these Masters students they almost without fail bemoan the fact they really didn't enjoy their science degrees until the fourth year, when they finally got to investigate topics they found extremely interesting.
2. School science remains a venue for a transmissive content knowledge experience stuck in increasingly poorly funded "science" classrooms. If lucky, learners engage in some "demonstration" activities (confirming "laws"), and rarely is actual inquiry into some student generated question found to occur (which actually illicits interest and some committment in learning). Most often students encounter abstracted conceptual frameworks that they must verify experientially. Just the oppositve of how human beings actually create understanding (embodied/experiential to abstracted/conceptual).
3. Like in math, many students by the middle grades experience "science" and "science learning" as static; a lifeless undertaking. In effect they get "vaccinated" by their school science experience and will never again be "infected" by a desire to learn about or be involved in science.
4. School science experiences (like math) for the most part alienate learners through the gatekeeping function that inhabits determinations of who gets to pursue an interest.
5. School science students have very little to do with living breathing scientists and so have little opportunity to consider such scientists as role models who come from diverse backgrounds. While I work with a few extension projects at my university in engineering, agriculture and physics, the need is huge. Children will and do respond to this.
6. Public schools, where many a good mind awaits deep and meaningful learning engagement, are under attack through poor funding and support.
7. High Schools, where students are arguably at the peak of their intellectual prowess, are met with an "infantilizing" enviroment, predicated on a "herd" mentality, the need to pass standardized tests...etc..etc... The few that make their way beyond this into a science related area or retain their interest generally is diminished.
8. Many others could be mentioned.....
So what aspects of Science policy in Canada are addressing these types of science education challenges/issues? How much money is being allotted through the government to support scientists not only in doing research and publishing etc... but in engaging the young especially in middle and secondary schools? To me this seems absolutely essential in meeting the lack of scientists and technologists in Canada, the general lack of interest among youth, and the lack of scientific literacy and wisdom among the populous, but seen most egregiously with a good number of our "leaders" aka politicians.
Just some thoughts.
I am glad to see this site exists. It is much needed.
T. Molnar (U of Saskatchewan)
There will be 140
There will be 140 fellowships.... there are over 6000 postdocs in Canada, average income $35000, most of us being paid from our supervisor's grant. The Conservative government claims that they are not changing tax policy... the fact is my pay check will be thousands less if this budget is passed. The increase in revenue from taxing postdocs (particularly those in Quebec) will more than compensate for the new fellowships. In other words they have not created any new moneys for postdocs, in fact in net they are taking away or reducing the incomes of postdocs as a whole. They are redistributing money from the majority of us to give a very few us more. How does this make any sense?
Taxation of Postdoctoral Fellowships
The new fellowships would be exciting news if they where going to effect more than a small percentage of the postdoc population. The budget does not seem to recognize that most postdoctoral fellows are funded from the research grants of their supervisors. As it stands this budget will give a very small number of postdocs a massive salary increase and will give the vast majority, in some instances, a 22% pay cut. Not only will you be taxed but you will also receive less child tax benefit and a lower GST rebate. How can this in anyway be considered fair or reasonable. This budget does far more to discourage promising graduate students from pursuing postdoctoral studies in Canada that it does to encourage.
Nature has mentioned the
Nature has mentioned the postdoc income tax issue recently:
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2010/100325/full/nj7288-635d.html
I agree that these new fellowships are welcome, but will likely affect only a few individuals (how many fellowships will there be?)
The reaction to budget 2010: cautious optimism
Support for postdoctoral fellows mixed in 2010 Federal Budget
Two new developments of note for science in the budget include the creation of a postdoctoral fellowship program for a select 140 postdocs/year, and (of much broader impact) the explicit exclusion of postdocs from the scholarship exemption afforded to all graduate students and those undergoing occupational training.
While the development of the new postdoctoral program is a welcome match to the elite Vanier scholarships provided to graduate students in previous budgets, the scholarship exemption being ineligible for postdoctoral fellows, who are temporary trainees on a defined track of research scholarship towards a permanent independent research career, and as such not that much different from graduate students who are tax exempt, has a huge and potentially quite negative impact on the ability of Canada to retain its PhD graduates and recruit research talent from abroad.
In addition, CIHR and other funding agencies set their postdoctoral stipend levels on the assumption that postdoc stipends are tax free. With no increase in targeted funds to postdocs (aside from these fellowships, which fund less than 2% of the entire postdoc population), this will result in large disparities in income between postdocs, and ultimately make Canada less competitive in terms of both retaining and attracting research talent to this country in bulk. In fact, it places bizarre disincentives into the system, such that a tax-free graduate student stands to earn less take-home income once they become a taxed postdoc (at current funding levels).
The Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars has released a press release here:
http://sites.google.com/site/canadapostdoc/Home/CAPS_Press_Relsease_Mar.pdf?attredirects=0
responding to this change, and also is preparing a petition outlining these disincentives to retaining PDFs in Canada, with some suggestions for how to rectify the situation - the petiton link will be provided once it is available.