In a bill tabled on February 7, the Legault government intends to transfer research responsibilities from the Ministry of Higher Education to the Ministry of the Economy, Innovation and Energy. At the same time, he wishes to abolish the three Quebec Research Funds (health; nature and technology; society and culture) to merge them into one, thus taking us back more than 20 years, to era of the FCAR Fund.
These changes, which in no way respond to a request from the research community – no consultation having preceded this bill – are enough to be frightening.
The use of ministerial decrees had certainly already made it possible for several years to transfer research responsibilities to the Ministry of the Economy. However, we understand that it is now a question of consecrating and perpetuating this support by enshrining it in the law and, at the same time, of putting in place the conditions allowing it to be given substance and to realign the financing public research, by reviewing the governance structure and the current division into three major sectors of the Quebec Research Funds.
The aim is supposedly to “make governance more coherent”, “maximize synergies” to facilitate cross-sectoral research and put in place a “more agile” structure. Apparently, it is above all a question, on the one hand, of centralizing governance with a single board of directors, two thirds of whose members would be chosen by the government and would have no link with the world of research, and , on the other hand, to standardize the methods of structuring and evaluating research in a way that will make it possible to promote research more specifically based on its possible economic benefits or its potential for innovation.
The government wishes to abolish the three Quebec Research Funds (FRQ – Health; Nature and Technology; Society and Culture) to merge them into one
A lot for one head
The government’s ambition is in line with the directions defended by the chief scientist, who would become the CEO of the single Research Fund, in addition to seeing his responsibilities broaden substantially.
Indeed, the chief scientist would now have to intervene to advise all members of the Executive Council on “any scientific question”. This is a lot for a single head and does not fail to surprise, to the extent that his method of appointment does not ensure his independence (as is the case for the general auditor or the chief electoral officer, for example). example).
The chief scientist would also become responsible for “fostering the rapprochement between science and society and maintaining ethics and responsible conduct in research.” If we cannot be against virtue, it is extremely worrying that we give it such responsibilities in a bill that makes no mention of the importance of academic autonomy and freedom.
The abolition of the three separate funds would be a dramatic setback for a number of disciplines for which their creation had constituted real progress, because it had made it possible to take into account the specificities of each major sector in terms of the ways of structuring research, evaluate and promote it, promoting functioning that is much better suited to their reality. We can therefore today have every reason to fear that the standardization which the merger of funds will lead to will consist of imposing on sectors which are not in a dominant position – in particular that of the arts and letters and that of the human and social sciences — ways of doing and structuring research which are those of other sectors and which do not suit them at all.
What value?
The government assured with its bill that “ [l]disciplinary and multidisciplinary research by sector, with its traditions, approaches and methodologies, will continue to develop, and [que] sectoral budgets will be preserved.” However, nothing in the bill guarantees this. What value should we place on this promise? And above all: why would we bother to restructure everything if the objective was truly to change nothing?
Finally, the intention to “maximize synergies between fields” and to promote intersectoral research is alarming for the future of fundamental research, as well as for all approaches which, for one reason or another, would not be in the interest of the government. Indeed, the intersectoral research thus targeted will likely be that which is at the heart of the Quebec Research, Investment and Innovation Strategy (SQRI2) and which specifically targets areas from which we can expect economic benefits, innovations or which directly respond to the current societal challenges for the government.
What financial support will remain for the fundamental research necessary to advance knowledge, for the critical approaches that are so important for the proper functioning of a democratic society and for all the research we will need to respond to the challenges of tomorrow, which we cannot predict today?
That the government wishes to fund intersectoral research linked to major societal challenges could be very good news if it were not a question of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by taking us back more than 20 years and by establishing a structure that threatens the future of research in a multitude of fields of study.
The academic world — and Quebec society — deserve much better than a bill that endangers free and independent research.