With the climate changing and severe weather becoming more frequent, Canada needs to do more to support atmospheric science, say researchers.
In a report published last June 21 scientists from the Meterological Service of Canada (MSC) and Canadian universities including U of T denounced Ottawa’s desire to transfer the MSC’s data collection and research responsibilities to universities by gradually cutting funding to the government agency. This policy would put an end to a long-lived research partnership between government and university scientists, which elevated Canada in the last 10 years to one of the top-five countries in atmospheric science. The authors warn that the partnership, which sustained Canada’s ability to monitor severe weather and provide us with quality research, can only be viable if funding is redirected towards existing MSC infrastructures, or towards the creation of a national institute in atmospheric science.
Over the last ten years, the government of Canada has steadily decreased the funding provided to its meteorological agency (funding stepped down by 20 per cent between 1993 and 2002). The MSC is currently the supporting infrastructure for a variety of university research, providing atmospheric data, computing facilities, models, skills and expertise.
According to the authors of the report, the justification for the cutbacks resides in the misconception that the government need not be involved in the business of research. Ottawa believes that supporting more research in universities can compensate for any reduction in the research done by government agencies. Meanwhile, it also hopes to reduce its operating costs while strengthening the research capacity of universities.
While researchers in academia welcome increases in short term funding, the new policy faces widespread disapproval. “Although some research could be conducted equally well in either government laboratories or the universities, there are many activities that necessarily require the long-term stability or infrastructure support that is difficult to achieve and maintain in a university environment. Graduate students and research grants typically have a four-year lifetime,” says Dr. Peter Taylor from York University.
Universities neither want to give up the freedom that is fundamental to their research, nor become servicing agencies for the government. Such intellectual flexibility proved to be essential during several occasions in the 1980s and 1990s. Early warnings for emerging phenomena such as acid rains, stratospheric ozone depletion, and climatic change were issued following university studies.
The report says that the policy could seriously jeopardize Canada’s ability to monitor environmental threats, and undermine its credibility in international negotiations on environmental issues. Quality researchers will continue to go elsewhere for better opportunities, and replacing retiring staff with young scientists will become increasingly difficult. This will result in diminishing the MSC’s ability to sustain current levels of research and to authoritatively advise policy makers. Moreover, less accurate weather predictions could endanger the population in many aspects. Hail, heavy rain, high winds, thunderstorms and tornadoes could be localized less precisely, which would affect the quality and timing of warnings issued to the population.
More than two months after publication, the authors are still waiting for an answer from environment minister Stéphane Dion. “We have received many letters of support from the population but no answer from the government. Even worse, Environment Canada has just announced a large re-organization of its internal structure, which will cost even more money to Canadian tax payers without necessarily improving the situation at MSC,” says Dr. Miriam Diamond from U of T.
