NRC is ‘open for business’

Share Button

For the chemists and engineers that work at Canada’s National Research Council — or in collaboration with it — the last two years have been a period of significant change. Under the leadership of President John R. McDougall, the nearly 100-year-old institution has refocused itself on helping to grow Canadian industry by providing the scientific research and development infrastructure and expertise that many companies seem to lack. Today, the NRC announced that it is officially “open for business.” In this post, I’d like to invite our members and readers to respond.

The events at NRC touch on the age-old (some would say false) debate between funding fundamental, ‘blue-sky’ research versus translational research, i.e. that which is done with a specific application in mind. Most agree that both are needed: the question is how to divide up the responsibility for delivering them between government, academia and industry. In the pages of our magazine, this issue has been addressed by many prominent members of Canada’s chemical community: Howard Alper, chair of Canada’s Science, Technology and Innovation Council (Q and A, Feb 2012 issue); senator Kelvin Ogilvie, chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Social ­Affairs, Science and Technology (sidebar to Q and A, April 2012 issue) and Nobel laureate John C. Polanyi (guest column, October 2011 issue.) Their comments have ranged from strong support for NRC’s new mandate (Ogilvie) to a sense that public policy may be ‘encroaching’ on the freedom scientists need to do their jobs (Polanyi.)

We will continue to explore this issue with columns and letters to the editor in future issues, but in the meantime I’m sure that many of our readers will have something to say. I invite them to present their views on the latest development in the comments section below.

Update 2013-05-14: CSC president Cathleen Crudden has been quoted in an article in Chemistry World about the changes at the NRC. While she says that “the government should get credit” for trying to solve the problem of the so-called innovation gap, she also says that the move oversimplifies the picture when it comes to basic versus applied research. “Many researchers at NRC and in universities are already involved in industrial partnerships carrying out applied work,” she says. “We need to make sure that both ends of the spectrum are funded as much as possible in order for Canada to continue to be a leader in science and engineering.” Read her full comments here and be sure to add yours below.

Share Button

Comments

NRC is ‘open for business’ — 4 Comments

  1. I wrote on this in 2012 when the changes were initially announced, and little has changed since then so I think it remains germane to this discussion:

    http://www.atomsandnumbers.com/2012/national-research-council-changes-are-good-for-business-but/

    http://www.atomsandnumbers.com/2012/how-will-nrc-changes-affect-academic-research/

    While I am in favour of steps that would make it easier for researchers and businesspeople to connect and get great ideas into the marketplace, I don’t want that done to the total detriment of “pure” research, and not with this new model where it is up to businesspeople to get the ideas, and up to the researchers to figure out how to get it done. It does put too much burden on researchers to makes things work, and they stand to lose far more if a proposed venture fizzles.

  2. Pingback: Federal Government confirms changes to National Research Council mandate | Atoms and Numbers

  3. Pingback: $19 million algae facility to be built in Alberta | Chemistry Matters

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>