Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

If you liked it then you should have put a synchrotron accelerator storage ring on it: university teachers smash the CERC patriarchy

by Paul Wells on Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:52am - 58 Comments

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has been one of the most persistent critics of the Harper government’s science and technology policy. It was CAUT president James Turk who got yelled at and kicked out of Gary Goodyear’s office last year while attempting to critique the then-latest federal budget. Here, the organization takes a stand against the Canada Excellence Research Chairs program, which funds 19 lead investigators from around the world, to the tune of $10 million each for a 7-year research project. Rather famously, the program named 19 men and no women for the CERC chairs.

My column in the brand-new edition of our magazine, which should appear online tomorrow, paints an almost completely positive picture of the CERC program, because I spent the day talking to university administrators. The CAUT speaks for a certain chunk of the population of university teachers, who have different interests, and because I love an argument, I thought I’d post their news release in full. There’s a lot here that I don’t endorse, but here. Let’s keep the conversation going at least. — pw

“The announcement of the awarding of 19 Canada Excellence Research Chairs brings into focus ongoing concerns about the Government of Canada’s approach to scientific research. As the organization representing most of Canada’s researchers, many of whose research plans are limited by under-funding, CAUT questions the value of a program that imposes new costs on institutions and diverts resources, fails entirely to address long-standing gender equity concerns, and represents the latest in a series of attempts by the government to steer scientific research.

“The CERC announcement comes as the funding available for the majority of academic researchers has fallen, and when many universities and colleges are cutting programs and staff. The last Federal Budget provided only a modest increase for Canada’s research granting councils, hardly equal to inflation and certainly not enough to offset the nearly $148 million in cuts announced last year. Similarly, the failure of the federal government to provide new long-term funding for agencies such as the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences and Genome has left many of our leading scientists in these fields and their research in limbo.

“The CERC program imposes new costs on institutions and diverts resources internally. Dalhousie University, for example, will need to find $24 million over seven years to support the newly appointed CERC in ocean science and technology, more than double the $10 million the federal government is providing. The University of Saskatchewan is putting up $10 million to help pay for its CERC in water security, with the province providing a matching sum at the same time it is cutting funds for the Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation. In effect, the CERC program is funding a handful of “stars” while other researchers are running out of funding, labs are being shut, staff are facing rollbacks, and courses are being discontinued.

“There is also a complete lack of gender and equity balance amongst the chairholders. The fact that there is not even one woman amongst the 19 CERC is unconscionable. Similar concerns around the Canada Research Chairs led to a human rights complaint and a settlement in which the government agreed to uphold its obligation to ensure that its programs are gender equitable. The CERC program flies in the face of that settlement and the government’s commitments.

“Finally, many in the research community are concerned about the relatively narrow focus of the CERC program which represents four priority areas identified by the federal government: the environment, natural resources and energy, health sciences, and information and communication technologies. While these are clearly important fields of study, CAUT does not believe it is appropriate for the government to steer research. Decisions about the merits of scientific research are best left to scientists, not governments or politicians. Moreover, the focus on just four priorities not only excludes the majority of researchers in the natural sciences, but it effectively shuts out the more than half of Canada’s researchers and graduate students in the social sciences and humanities.

“The CERC program highlights the lack of an overall vision for scientific research in Canada. Canadian science will best prosper when universities and colleges are more adequately funded, when basic research funding provided through the three granting agencies is sufficient to fund projects of scientific merit across all disciplines, and when what should be funded is based upon the judgment of the scientific community.”

Bookmark and Share
  • McC

    I would hate to put someone in the position of being viewed as 'the token woman', but seriously, could they not have recruited ONE?! (I know there are lots of structural issues in terms of which genders are represented in which scientific disciplines, compounded by which scientific disciplines were prioritized by this program, and that quotos are BS, etc. etc. etc.; but come on, 19 men just looks and feels wrong!)

    • herringchoker

      According to Suzanne Fortier, President of NSERC (which ran the competition), the answer is NO.

      At least that's what she said on The Current this morning.

      • catherine

        If 0 out of 19 looks bad, 0 out of 36 looks even worse. There were 36 finalists from which the 19 were chosen, and the 36 were all men. When the numbers get this far out of whack, clearly there is a problem and we could have recruited better scientists and engineers if the pool wasn't restricted to men. I doubt there are any faculties at MIT, Harvard, Stanford, etc with a male to female ratio as low as the 0 women to 36 men would suggest.

        Overall the end results of this program are a mixed bag, with some outstanding researchers and other significantly less impressive researchers. Suzanne Fortier is being disingenuous, as there certainly are many senior women more outstanding than some of these 19 men. Whether we could have landed any of them, we will never know.

        • Cats

          Excuse me ? The pool wasn't "restricted to men".

          This gov't and the previous one go out of their way to find women/minority applicants for almost everything.

          The problem is that at the top levels of academics there simply are NOT any women. That's a structural problem that will be solved in generations and involves getting more girls interested in science and technology at a young age. LEGO can't just be for boys.

          You can't blame the gov't for a social problem. That's ridiculous.

          Cats annoyed, cats grumbling in anger at the suggestion.

          • Holly Stick

            "…This gov't and the previous one go out of their way to find women/minority applicants for almost everything…"

            Evidence?

          • Cats

            Here's a first person account from under the Harper gov't:
            http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/19/st…

            I guess I can't speak for sure about the previous gov't, although I would say that their selection for GG was widely seen as an unqualified token pick.

            Cats back atcha.

          • Holly Stick

            What first person account? Not that I would trust a National Post writer's opinion anyway.

          • Cats

            Ok wacky conspiracy theory tin hat lady!

            Cats laugh, laughing at you.

          • catherine

            The "first person" account referred to in the article is the author's account of sitting on a committee which was asked to review their decisions to see if they had passed over women. Her committee reviewed their own decisions and …. gasp … decided they were right!

            This reminds me of a case of science funding a while back, where some people felt a committee had discriminated against a woman scientist. The funding agency decided to go back to the same committee and ask them if they had discriminated. And ….. gasp …. they decided they had not discriminated. The woman scientist is now holds an endowed Chair at Harvard.

            When you go back to the same people and ask them if they think they are right in a case concerning possible bias or discrimination, usually they do, in fact, think they are right and unbiased. I know …. difficult to believe. But here we have a first person account of this phenomenon.

          • Cats

            Umm Tony Clement asked an independent woman to look over this current situation and she said on the face of it there's nothing to see here at all.

            Kinda blows your whole twisted conspiracy theories out of the water, eh ? What's the latest TWIST, something about women secretly hating themselves and being biased to their own work….

            Cats wondering if you're OK in da noggin!

          • Holly Stick

            One news report called the reviewers friendly to the government. I'd like to know just what that meant.

        • herringchoker

          Actually I don't think Ms. Fortier was being disingenuous at all. She stated that NSERC approached several women (she didn't say how many) and asked if they were interested in having their names put on the short list. They received zero takers. It seems that none of the top females in the sciences were interested in moving to Canada to be research chairs. I suspect that there's a story in there somewhere but it bears little resemblance to the one CAUT is peddling.

          • catherine

            Waterloo worked intensely on recruiting their candidate over a period of more than a year, with multiple visits and discussions and offers before the no turned into a yes. I'd like to see Fortier's efforts on women stacked up against some of the successful efforts on men. Get some details, and then we can really compare the effort expended on potential female and male candidates.

            But I thought Fortier's earlier statements were that there weren't any senior women – or at least not above the 2 or 3% level so that one would expect one to turn up in a list of 36. Is she now saying there are senior women but they are not interested?

          • Cats

            Oh weird. Its now clear you have a personal connection/axe to grind here.

            Please disclose.

            Cats in the bag! Cats discredited a mouse.

  • avr

    I tend to wonder how many other serious researchers actually in the running for funding (as opposed to the sessional profs, community college lecturers and librarians also included in CAUT's membership) would be happy knowing that their higher-profile, more-objectively-worthwhile work was passed over because they weren't fortunate enough to fit into the currently designated Victim Deserving of Affirmative Action identity. (And without having read the settlement over the other program, I would be surprised if there isn't an awful lot of wiggle room in any event.)

    While these are clearly important fields of study, CAUT does not believe it is appropriate for the government to steer research.

    Unless corruptly obtained, public money always comes with some strings attached – y'know, as part of that whole silly "accountability" thing. That's theoretically true for everyone, everywhere; why should research chairs be different? I appreciate that the value of the humanities is hard to quantify next to energy or medical breakthroughs, but simultaneously demanding the same funding as the sciences receive with freedom from all oversight comes off as supreme ivory-tower arrogance.

    • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

      "Unless corruptly obtained, public money always comes with some strings attached…"

      You mean like: we want a breakthrough by next April? That is madness. The history of science has tended to support the argument that the gov. gets the best result is they fund the science but leave it up to the scientists to determine what direction their research should take. And the strings here effect not only the gov money in play but demands that the insitution divert funds from elsewhere.

      "I tend to wonder how many other researchers would be happy knowing that their higher-profile, more-objectively-worthwhile work was passed over because they weren't fortunate enough to fit into the currently designated Victim Deserving of Affirmative Action identity."

      Don't be a pig. D'you really think, if the Tories were recruiting planet wide to fill these positions, they couldn't find one suitable female scientist?

      • avr

        You mean like: we want a breakthrough by next April?

        No, I mean like: the outcome of this research will have a theoretically quantifiable impact on understanding of the hard sciences, that may lead in some way to a higher quality of life for Canadians and/or all humanity. As opposed to: the outcome of this research will have a definitively non-quantifiable impact on understanding of the works of Christopher Marlowe with regard to Elizabethan-era construction of gender identity, that may lead to one in a hundred English lit students deciding to make further study of the area their life's work, or possibly a funny newspaper article in the Arts & Life section when it's published. The government is entitled to try and spend public money in a way they can (maybe) measure the benefits.

        D'you really think, if the Tories were recruiting planet wide to fill these positions, they couldn't find one suitable female scientist?

        Clearly they didn't, at least within the parameters of the research the program is intended to promote. Do you really think that it is completely impossible that the 19 very best researchers doing the most promising and potentially valuable work in fields with structural gender imbalances may, in fact, be male? Do you really think that that "one suitable female scientist" isn't going to know she's the obvious token woman, and be ostracized by her colleagues who may rightly feel their work was more deserving, and can point to the academic community's appraisal to that effect?

        • catherine

          From the description of this program, I don't think this program is meant to impact on our understanding of the hard sciences. I think it is meant to impact on applying our understanding of the hard sciences and on the economy. Of course, some universities get creative in shoehorning fundamental research into applied boxes, so the program may ultimately impact on our understanding of hard sciences. But I don't see any indication that the government wants or expects that.

          On the gender issue, excellence was already compromised when they had 36 male nominations and zero female. Some of these men only got the job because they didn't have to compete with even better women.

          David Corey is one outstanding and deserving candidate who Waterloo was working hard to recruit even before this program. Had universities been working as hard on recruiting some of Corey's eminent female colleagues in science and engineering at MIT (or comparable places), a few of the men who got these Chairs, but who are not of the calibre to land a senior faculty job at a place like MIT, would have been out of luck.

          You worry about the theoretical possibility of a token woman, but are you at all concerned about the reality of men who only got these publicly funded positions because they didn't have to compete with women?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

            "When IC Minister Tony Clement learned that all the CERC finalists were men, he assembled an ad hoc panel to investigate. It was led by Suzanne Fortier, president of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and included Elizabeth Dowdeswell, president of the Council of Canadian Academies, and Indira Samarasekera, president of the University of Alberta in Canada. The panel found that "the absence of female recipients was not a result of active choices made during the formal review processes of the program," says Lynn Meahan, IC press secretary."
            http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05…

            Who are these women men didn't have to compete with and why didn't they apply for positions?

          • catherine

            These women are in senior positions at places like MIT, etc., but no one applied for these positions – or at least no one you would expect to end up on the list of finalists applied for these positions. Universities contacted potential candidates that they heard of through word of mouth, informal recommendations, etc.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

            So why didn't they apply? Why did no one at MIT or the like think enough of these researchers to put them forward as that institution's candidate for the program? At some point a visible intention to compete has to be part of the conversation, if you're claiming discrimination in the competition's outcome.

          • Cats

            OK this is just getting silly.

            "Some of these men only got the job because they didn't have to compete with even better women."

            Do you have any evidence to back up this crazy claim ? That there was gender discrimination in the process and women weren't looked at ? Everybody on all these boards were sexist/women haters ?

            Give me a break.

            Sideways looking cat.

          • avr

            You worry about the theoretical possibility of a token woman, but are you at all concerned about the reality of men who only got these publicly funded positions because they didn't have to compete with women?

            Are you suggesting that the body making the decision should have replied to the institutions applying, to the effect of "Don't you really mean that female researcher X with fewer qualifications and less published work is who would get the money, huh?"

            If you want to take issue with the structural gender imbalances in these fields, and somehow entice sufficient women to work therein that they make up a portion statistically comparable to the general population, and therefore eventually average out the gender makeup of the best of the best, there's nothing wrong with that. But when applying for public funding evaluated on a completely utilitarian basis, research institutions are logically going to put forward their top producers with the most impressive CV and most potentially useful subject matter. That so few women are apparently at the forefronts of these fields is not a reason to make an affirmative action grant just for the sake of ostentatious (and wasteful) visible equality.

          • JamesHalifax

            catherine opined:
            "Some of these men only got the job because they didn't have to compete with even better women"

            Sorry catherine, I know your feelings are hurt but face it……..the men got the jobs not because they didn't have to compete with even better women……the men got the jobs because they were much better in their respective fields than the women in the same fields. Secondly, many of the women in the running were either not interested and did not agree to being named. That is their choice…..it is not discrimination or a glass ceiling.

            tell you what catherine…….start studying REAL HARD about science and submit your own name. Who knows….maybe they'll pick you because of your gender as opposed to your intellect. It happens all the time….you may get lucky.

          • catherine

            You think women get jobs in science "all the time" because of their gender but men get jobs in science because they are "much better… than the women". Wow … that's really an original view on this subject. LOL.

          • Cats

            Sorry but your contributions have been far more lol worthy to this discussion.

            Cats don't like crazy conspiracy theory bra burnin lady!

          • JamesHalifax

            Catherine asked:
            "You think women get jobs in science "all the time" because of their gender but men get jobs in science because they are "much better… than the women". Wow … that's really an original view on this subject. LOL."

            It's not an original view catherine, it's just the reality you will need to come to grips with. When it comes to science, the big brains usually come with a penis. Live with it.

  • commentator

    CAUT is a union collective, and like all (academic) unions it speaks for the great mass–of drones– who hate anyone who excels, sets the standard and, worse, gets paid more. The CERC may be a success and may inspire good science in Canada. Maybe. But no one should be surprised if CAUT tries to sabotage the program no matter if it does or not.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jmckinnell Jonathan McKinnell

    Great headline

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    As I see it, their objections boil down to two:

    (1) The funding is allocated by government rather than by scientists.
    The government represents the people and makes decision like this on our behalf. Since it's our money, it makes perfect sense for our representatives to decide how to allocate it as long as they aren't allocating it in a way that violates our will. Furthermore, scientists were part of the team that assessed individual applications.

    (2) Gender equity: there were no female researchers selected.
    Are they suggesting that the selection committee was prejudiced? Or are they suggesting that the selection was fair, but that it should have been weighted unfairly to favour particular victim classes? They should answer this question, because if there is evidence for the first then they have a valid point, whereas if not then they're either maligning the committee with no basis or they're advocating affirmative action. Which is it?

    They also seem to have a problem with merit-based awards…. which is sort of the point of the program.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      Well, first, I have a problem with more than half of the human population being referred to as a "victim class".

      Second, I'm sorry if I find it a tad suspicious that 36 out of 36 finalists were men. Maybe that's just a huge coincidence, but when you're batting 1.000 I don't think it's crazy for someone to ask if any of the pitchers in the league are even TRYING to get you out. I don't by any means expect only 50% of awards like this to go to men, but I don't think it's inappropriate to raise an eyebrow when 100% of the Chairs are men, from a pool of finalists who were also 100% men. If the winners are all men, and the short list were all men, I don't think it's crazy to ask if any women were considered for the Chairs at any point in the process. A 100% success rate for any group just seems worthy of further investigation.

      • Cats

        How many women are CEOS of fortune 500 companies ?

        Like 5 ?

        Cats all missing the point, the problem isn't with the program, its with broader society.

        • Lord Kitchener's Own

          Actually, I think it's more like 10. And again, everything could be totally kosher here with CERC, but even men achieving 98% success rate in the F500 category is less off putting (to me) then men having a 100% success rate. The problem is definitely bigger than the program, and maybe there's no problem with the program. I just don't think we're at a point yet as a society where we should be completely non-pulsed by any identifiable group having a 100% success rate in any endeavour. Any time I see 100% or 0%, I want more info.

          • Cats

            The rate isn't 100% or 0% though, just the sample. I'm sure if you expand the sample out beyond 36 finalists, to say maybe the top 50 you'd be bound to start getting women.

            Again though, it shouldn't make us suspcious of the program.

            It should make us question how and why there is not gender equity at the highest reaches of scientific research.

            Is it a lack of interest? A lack of support? Taking time off to start a family? A difference in the female brain? Systemic bias that works against women at every level, to the point that the cumulative effect is a barrier to the highest reaches?

            Who knows, cats wonder and are puzzled, but they don't imagine crazy sexist conspiracy theories.

          • catherine

            The rate isn't 100% or 0% though, just the sample. I'm sure if you expand the sample out beyond 36 finalists, to say maybe the top 50 you'd be bound to start getting women.

            Why are you sure women would start showing up at around the 2% level??

            The National Academy statistics say that women made up 19% of full professors in science and engineering in the US in 2007. If you just focus on the top 10 institutions in the US, this percentage may drop a bit to around 15%. For example, at Harvard the fraction of full professors is ~25%, and I didn't find science separated out, but in Chemistry and Physics only 16% of the full professors are women. In Harvard Engineering it is 11%.

            One can also look at individuals – there are some amazing researchers among the dozens of women faculty at Harvard in areas like Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry. One of the most impressive new CERCs is from MIT and I notice his senior female colleague in the MIT Department of Nuclear Engineering, is an expat Canadian – as are some at Harvard.

            Of course, Canada isn't going to lure leaders like Shirley Tilghman (biochemist and President of Princeton University), Elizabeth Blackburn or Carol Greider (biochemists and Nobel Laureates) or even a Jennifer Chayes (mathematician and director of Microscoft Research) with $10M, but we aren't luring men at this level of success either. However, we may have lured female colleagues of some of the19 CERC men if anyone had put in the same time and effort on them.

            Why do you think things would be so different if the number of nominations was increased from 36 to 50? Note the 36 finalists are the ONLY nominations and not a group selected from a larger group. It is not like there were some names of females around that didn't make the cut – there just weren't any.

          • http://www.pogge.ca skdadl

            Oh look. Somebody has facts. Catherine actually knows what she's talking about.

            Thanks very much for the information, Catherine.

          • Cats

            Yeah, strange and not relevent facts.

            LOOK I'M A CAT THROWING NUMBERS AT PEOPLE.

          • JamesHalifax

            Catherine noted:
            "One can also look at individuals – there are some amazing researchers among the dozens of women faculty at Harvard in areas like Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry"

            All very true Catherine, however, the grants and funding are not for "amazing" researchers……they are meant for the "MOST AMAZING" researchers.

            Can you see the difference?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

        100% success rate for any group

        I have to suspect that CAUT would take little issue with it if all 36 finalists were female, and would instead laud CERC for being so inherently progressive.

      • Gaunilon

        I don't necessarily agree with this article, but it's a very interesting and informed perspective on the gender divide in science. You might find it informative as an alternate point of view.

        What's indisputable is that there are a lot more men at the upper levels of science than women. Therefore having all the award winners in a fair awards contest in the sciences turn out to be male is not as unlikely as you might think – particularly if it's weighted more towards engineering, physics, and physical chem than biology or biochemistry.

    • AcademicFemale

      'They also seem to have a problem with merit-based awards'

      Everyone knows that nothing is merit based – much as academia likes to sell itself as such. It's based on who you know and who you suck up to – style rather than substance. This is not a merit-based selection process – it's a popularity contest. And women aren't popular. Surprise surprise.

      • JamesHalifax

        AcademicFemale wrote:
        "Everyone knows that nothing is merit based – much as academia likes to sell itself as such. It's based on who you know and who you suck up to – style rather than substance. This is not a merit-based selection process – it's a popularity contest. And women aren't popular. Surprise surprise. "

        I take it you blame your lack of real achievment on discrimination or not knowing the right people eh?

        Hardly surprising. Maybe you should change your monikor to "Average AcademicFemale"

        Just to be factual.

  • bergkamp

    "The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, sparked an uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Summers also questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities" Boston Globe, January 2005

    Federal government is supposed to achieve gender equity regardless of merit or ability? God help us from Women's studies profs and that kind of thinking. When CAUT starts agitating for gender equality in all Departments, and not just ones women aren't as interested in, than I will believe they are in favour of equality.

    Darwin and his theory just might have some real world consequences, other than irritating a few evangelicals of course.

  • shouldIsellyourwheat

    You can't change the mostly complacent and mediocre Canadian university research culture without bringing in foreign hyper-aggressive prime research investigators like CERC does.

  • Bonko

    That's roughly the same percentage of speakers at the Liberal 150 Conference who were women. A record 12 of 27 deputy ministers in the PS are women and the number of women in the public service, academia, and the workforce has continued to increase while Harper has been PM. This is cherry picking, women are not entitled to quotas, they have to earn it like everyone else.

    Wells, you can't go on about productivity and innovation while turning a blind eye to the Culture of Quota that your leftist comrades are imposing on Canada which is seriously harming our ability to have a viable private sector. You don't think investors do a double take at investing in R&D in Canada when they read stuff like this? They do.

    Turn it around: women have a duty to be productive. Why are they shirking their duties in science and in politics and in creating wealth, I ask tongue in cheek? In economics, when country A's GDP is 70% of country B's, we say that country B is more productive. Similarly, when women "earn" 70% of what men do what it really means is that the average woman is only 70% as productive as a man, who consequently pays far more taxes. Women aren't shouldering their fair share of the load and it's time they stop shouting and start being more productive.

    • Epimetheus

      See my response below…I thought that it deserved to be seen in the open and buried under your observations

  • TedTylerEzro

    Maybe all of this will be one of the things that gets humanities and social "science" (yes I'm using the air quotes ) departments to take a hard look at what they are and what they want to contribute to the wider society.

    Take into account the job market that students will be entering and broaden their skills with a more liberal arts education, and so students can tell prospective employers how the skills that they learned are applicable in the private sector. Examine the ideological framework of your discipline and see if is leading to work that has a practical application, or is just used to to soak up money for the sake of an incestuous academic ideology and nepotistic elite.

    If there isn't serious and fundamental change, the lack of government funding will be the least of their problems. Eventually, they won't even have any students, and the students they do have will just be among those denouncing them as frauds.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      Good Lord this is everything I hate about what's happening to universities today.

      Over a thousand years of proud intellectual tradition, and today, it's all about job training.

      • TedTylerEzro

        Well they aren't training clergy anymore LKO.

        The thing about living traditions is they adapt.

      • http://www.pogge.ca skdadl

        It's dangerous too. When the awards are not only focused only on the sciences but on applied sciences, then you know that this country has just given up making any serious contributions to human progress or advancing enlightenment.

  • CAPS

    Paul,

    Thanks once again for bringing your weight and insight to an important topic that receives far too little attention, scrutiny or public analysis. Perhaps bags of cocaine and busty hookers can be found amongst the research set but maybe only at the margins.

    I would think that CAUT would be an important stakeholder group to be at least consulted when developping a programme like CERC.

    I would prefer to see something like CERC on top off proper braod-based funding for university research rather than in place of it …

    And yet, and yet, and yet … seeking out and attracting the best and brightest can only be a positive. Supporting excellence in research, sports the arts etc. helps inspire others to greater hieghts and should help lift all boat.

    My quibble would be that I would like this excellence to come from a large pool of properly funded projects that start with the youngest at the community level but hey, it's just a quibble.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    Even in these enlightened days, Nobel prize winners in the sciences tend overwhelmingly to be men. Does this mean the Nobel Foundation is biased? I doubt it.

    • catherine

      Actually 4 women won Nobel Prizes in science in the last 2 years, but none of them have Excellent Penises — or is it Excellence Penises (who came up the name of this program anyway?) — to bring to Canada. :)

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

        I'm all for excellence in penishood, but I think you've managed to miss his point entirely.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      I'd be less interested in digging a little deeper if the success rate "overwhelmingly" favoured men, as opposed to exclusively favouring men. Again, everything may well be completely kosher, but you'll forgive me for being sceptical whenever I read a story that says ANYTHING was 100% of ANYTHING.

  • Tossitup

    best headline ever.

  • Epimetheus

    @Bonko:" Women aren't shouldering their fair share of the load and it's time they stop shouting and start being more productive"
    Did you even think as your were typing that?

    "What?! You're taking some time off of work, limiting your work hours or leaving the work force entirely so you can have and raise children?! Leaches, I say!! You should be dropping those children next to your work-station and getting back to work post-haste!"

    …Oh, but wait a minute, then you'd need some sort of affordable, accessible child care….Or a change to the publish or perish collegiate mentality that requires newly minted Ph.D's to slave away as Post-Doc's so they can churn out enough papers to get hired on as faculty somewhere and/or have a hope of securing a research grant.

  • Epimetheus

    @Bonko….cont'd

    I work in academia, and I've seen first hand that a woman more often than not ends up having two choices: throw oneself into the post-PhD research mines, or have a family.

    My wife has a Ph.D., but since she decided to marry me and be the mother of our two great kids she effectively removed herself from getting a Post-Doc position (which needs to be done somewhere other than where one completes a Ph.D….which happens to be where we live and I have a job), let alone a faculty or research position. And I would defy ANYONE who would even think to say that she is not productive!

From Macleans