Americans reevaluate Science

If you're into science, there is a lot like about the american's latest budget. Science agencies will see their share increase as the government tries to spur innovation. In fact, our neighbor's new attitude toward science is a sign the community's advices are being taken seriously.

The United States will be looking into growing a market for renewable energy. Wind, solar and hydroelectric solutions should therefor be brought into prominence south of the border.

At the very least, their government will pour resources into finding cheap energy alternatives. I guess the frontrunners in that category are clean coal and nuclear energy.

By promoting clean and renewable energy, the United States are taking steps into the construction of a new economy. This will become ground for partnerships with the other countries that are taking this approach. Once markets such as China and the EU take the plunge, the rest of the world will have not choice but to follow. Of course, Canada could have been ahead of the curve had it aggressively invest in new energies. But we all know how that ended.

We need to remain cautious and temper our optimism. Basic science needs long term support to be effective. With that said, the decision to cut NASA's space exploration program is not going to sit well with everyone. The new budget is betting on smaller agencies reasoning they are more flexible, think outside the boxe and are more likely to bring their projects to term. It's a valid argument when you omit that the problem with NASA's program might have had more to do with a lack of funding in the first place.

Regardless, the budget is still exciting news for the community and sets the bar to a standard I hope Canada will try to reach.

Science minister in hot water

The Canadian science minister, Gary Goodyear, does not practice what he preaches according to the Globe and Mail. His stance on evolution has been a contentious issue in the science community and many believe he may not have the moral authority to hold the position he now occupies in the government.

When asked whether he believed in evolution, he avoided a direct answer saying the question is irrelevant. I will argue this is a valid answer. A person should not have to agree with every aspect of his or her job. Would it be fair to judge a lawyer based on his defense of men who will later be found guilty of criminal acts?

Learning to defend views you do not personally embrace is promoted through the teaching of critical thinking and ethics. It is perfectly natural and exists in every field.

Now, I find there are problems that warrant us to question Goodyear as science minister. The scientific community doesn't have much faith in him for protecting their interests. He is held partly responsible for the cuts in science funding programs. This could be unjustified, but I can see why others may be skeptical of his goodwill given his background and his party's philosophy toward science.

Finally, he proposes to focus on the commercialization of science rather than fundamental research. If you know me, you know I advocate for strong fundamental research programs for the country. While commercialization is the end or the process, science cannot progress if there’s no money going into fundamental research. Curiosity and risk need to be rewarded if we want to keep on making new discoveries. Funding safe research simply won’t produce satisfying results.