Delegation lobbies Ottawa to simplify funding of large national research facilities

Single funding source urged

Two respected proponents of a strong national innovation system led a delegation to Ottawa last week for five days of meetings to push for dramatic change in how Ottawa funds Canada’s national research facilities. The Saskatchewan delegation met with key ministers, secretaries of state, DMs and opposition parties to argue for a consolidation of funding sources so that they flow to national facilities through one institution.

The idea is being advanced by Dr Peter Thomlinson, executive director of Canadian Light Source Inc (CLS) — the non-profit corporation responsible for operating the new synchrotron facility at the Univ of Saskatchewan (U of S) — and Dr Peter MacKinnon, president and vice-chancellor of the U of S and incoming chairman of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

A one-stop source for operational funding would eliminate the patchwork of agencies and institutions that national facilities must cobble together to operate. The problem becomes more acute for a facility like the CLS, which will offer a wide range of industrial applications.

“We’re not specifically talking about the CLS. Our strategy is to speak to the national agenda and find some champions who understand the need for a shift in how national research infrastructure is funded when it’s operations,” says Thomlinson. “If you want to keep the innovation system going you have to have a pathway and make sure it is clear.”

The funding arrangement for the CLS is a case in point. The physical facility was funded through a combination of federal and provincial dollars to the tune of $141million. The operating costs when it goes on line early next year will start at about $12.6 million, and come from no fewer than four sources (see chart), with a fifth if negotiations with Genome Canada are successful. Each funding source has its own set of conditions and time lines, making its ongoing management confusing and fraught with uncertainty.

During the Ottawa visit, Thomlinson, MacKinnon and others spoke with a large number of senior policy makers and bureaucrats including Industry minister Allan Rock, Alex Himelfarb, clerk of the Privy Council, the secretaries of state for Western Economic Diversification and Science, Research and Development, and George Anderson, DM at Natural Resources Canada.

A source close to the discussions says the message delivered by the the CLS delegation in a series of meetings, lunches, dinners and receptions was well received by government officials.

“The trip was well worthwhile. They decided to take the high road and do the visit as a question of principle,” he says. “They came to the heart of power in Ottawa to make the government aware of the predicament. The operating funding the CLS has now is bare bones with nothing left over for expanding the facility.”

Thomlinson says the delegation was speaking on behalf of all national facilities — CLS, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, TRIUMF and the new research vessel officially launched last month (see page 3). That includes a wide variety of research such as high-energy physics, neutron physics and oceanography. It could also include fusion research if Canada is successful in securing the massive ITER facility that is now the focus of intense competition.

Canada’s recent setback in its bid to attract the ITER project to Ontario is indicative of the problems that the Saskatchewan delegation is highlighting. The international body responsible for selecting a site expressed concern that the Canadian government was not willing to make a financial commitment to the project and its operations, forcing the government to re-think its proposal and consider a revised bid (R$, February 5/03).

The case of the CLS is particularly relevant as about half of the research to be undertaken there will be applied and industrially focused.

“If you have a big facility then it is only sensible that it be funded centrally, but it also depends on the nature of the facility itself,” says TRIUMF director Dr Alan Shotter. “If the facility has a dominant industrial focus, it is even more important. The CLS has a wider spectrum of industrial applications and I certainly support their cause. Canada does very well for its size in terms of its vision for these types of large facilities, but it has work to do in terms of how you maintain them for the long term.”

The current CLS operations budget is adequate for now, but that could change if it is approved for additional funding by the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). The $55-million expansion (with CFI providing $22 million or 40%) would double the number of beamlines to 14, increasing operational costs . The CFI announcement is expected in February/04. Although the CFI award would come with operating funds from other sources, Thomlinson says it would only be a matter of time before the budget becomes strained.

“We will need laboratory and information technology resources but we won’t be able to grow our technical capabilities outside of what we may get in the CFI round,” he says. “Our only growth potential in the budget is to generate industrial revenue on a net value and that’s very dicey.”

DEMAND INSATIABLE

Demand for synchrotrons worldwide is exploding and the CLS won’t be able to satisfy requirements in certain areas with the number of beamlines now being considered. Thomlinson says demand in the area of protein crystalography is huge and could keep as many as four beamlines operating full time. One of the seven approved beamlines is dedicated to protein crystalography and a second is being proposed in the submission currently before the CFI. Another area in which the CLS will be hard pressed to satisfy demand is in spectral spectroscopy.

ACST TO EXAMINE ISSUE

The message Thomlinson and other carried to Ottawa is not new. Industry minister Allan Rock raised the issue from the individual researcher’s standpoint at last November’s National Innovation Summit in Toronto when he announced two new mandates for a revitalized Advisory Council on Science & Technology (see page 6).

“Are there too many sources of funding? Can they be consolidated? And can we make life easier for the researchers,” asked Rock. “You know applying for research assistance now is quite a burden when you consider the variety of sources, the different forms, deadlines and criteria. Our researchers are spending too much time filling out forms rather than developing new ideas.”

R$