Canada's granting process was an outmoded system that worked when there wasn't a lot of pressure and the community was small. I sat on one of the granting panels that chose which applicants would be funded and was surprised at how much political considerations entered into the final awards. We scientists on the grant panel spent a lot of time assessing and rating the applications on their scientific merits as best we could and then allocating the funds. But our decisions were only recommendations, which we submitted to the National Research Council. When the final decisions were announced, it was obvious that additions and deletions had been made to our recommendations according to geographic distribution and whether an institution seemed to have a disproportionate amount or was shut out of any support. It was a ridiculous way to give out money. Our policy seemed to be: pee over a broad expanse of ground and hope plants will sprout up everywhere. But if our bladder is small, we should at least direct the fertilizer to where the seeds are, not sprinkle it around.
When I was still active in research, Canadian granting agencies didn't seem to have the courage to identify the outstanding scientists and provide them with as much money as possible while turning down the rest. Today, much larger sums of research money are allocated and the rejection rate is much higher, but when I had a lab most applicants got grants at very low levels of support. We should focus on new, young scientists, because at the start of their careers, they are ambitious and have the energy to work hard. They are the ones who should be given substantial funding with few formal demands other than following wherever their interests lead for three or four years. At that point, they will have a body of work that can be evaluated for originality, quality, and quantity. From then on, those who have done promising work can be supported very well. We don't create excellence by funding institutions or infrastructure — it is individuals to whom we should pay attention and provide support.
Science has never been considered an important part of Canadian culture or celebrated in the way we celebrate the arts. Wisely, the Science Council of Canada was established as a Crown corporation, supposedly with an arm's length relationship with government. I say “supposedly” because when Stuart Smith, who was leader of the Liberal party of Ontario, became head of the Science Council, he had a difficult time reappointing me to the board for a second term because of a B.C. senator who opposed it. Nevertheless, in a time when the most powerful effect on our lives and our society is science, we need a body to look at the implications and provide counsel to guide us into the future. In 1993, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney abolished the Science Council (along with the Economics Council), thereby ensuring that we would move into the future with greater uncertainty and make decisions for political reasons, ignoring science-based assessments of the issues.
the former host of CBC Radio's Morningside, Peter Gzowski, richly deserved the adulation expressed upon his untimely death in 2002. Gzowski was quintessentially Canadian. I cannot imagine him or someone like him with his stuttering, humble, low-key way making it as a star in London or New York. But in Canada, he touched a deep chord.
He interviewed me a number of times on Morningside, and I had also appeared several times on his painful venture into television, 0 Minutes Live. There was much resentment within the Nature of Things unit about the money lavished on Gzowski's television program, but I loved the idea of a nightly showcase for Canadian talent. It's unfortunate that what worked so well on radio was a disaster on television. Gzowski felt I was a strong contributor, and he wanted me to appear as a regular on the show. I was flattered, but I didn't want to simply be a reporter on the “Golly, gee whiz, what will they think of next?” or “Isn't that scary?” aspect of science, so I declined.
One of the high points of my appearances on 0 Minutes Live was the night I appeared with Kurt Vonnegut Jr., and Timothy Leary. Vonnegut and I got on famously, and we were both appalled at Leary, who was in his phase of pushing SMIILE, which stood for Space Migration, Intelligence Increase, Life Extension, the kind of techno-optimism that makes my teeth ache. It was great television, and the sparks were flying between the three of us when Peter broke in for a commercial. When the break was over, we were cut off, and he went on with the next act, which was a man with a bullwhip knocking cigarettes out of his son's mouth.
Much later I spoke with Alex Frame, the executive producer of 0 Minutes Live, and he admitted it had been a mistake to stay so wedded to the prearranged schedule rather than let the energy of Leary, Vonnegut, and Suzuki carry on. The next day, Tara and I went out for breakfast with Vonnegut, who was charming and insisted on taking us to a bookstore to get one of his books. The salesperson did a double take when he recognized Vonnegut and could do nothing but stare when Vonnegut asked where his own books were. Eventually Vonnegut found the book he wanted and signed it, and it is one of our treasured possessions.
I appeared sporadically on Morningside. Peter was laid-back, but I was always wary, expecting some nasty question to come at me. It never did. He was a very generous interviewer, asking a question and then letting me have my say rather than cutting me off to shape the interview the way he wanted, as so many hosts do today. But if he was genuinely interested in what I said, I couldn't understand why he didn't go on to espouse environmental causes. I have always been surprised that hosts of programs may report on frightening or urgent stories, yet when the show is over, they move on to the next issue. It was one of the problems Jim Murray, my boss and best friend at The Nature of Things, had with me. Because of a program we did, say, on the Cree in Quebec, the Kaiapo in the Amazon, or the Haida in Haida Gwaii, I couldn't help but stay engaged with them. So when the program had been broadcast, I'd still be working away with them, whereas Jim felt I should move on and concentrate on the next show, which was a perfectly reasonable position from the standpoint of the series.
Writing about himself in 2001, Gzowski admitted in A Peter Gzowski Reader that he
had a pretty full life. On radio or television or with pencil in hand, I've got to meet the Queen, eight prime ministers (nine if you count Margaret Thatcher. .), four governors-general, two chief justices, two Nobel Prize winners, the world yodeling, whistling and bagpipe champions (all Canadians) and every winner and most of the runners up of the Giller Prize for Literature.
Gzowski was clearly proud of having interviewed so many important people — and he should have been. The range of people he had met and interviewed in a career spanning almost twenty years, for three hours a day, five days a week, must be mind-boggling. I always marveled at the sheer stamina and concentration needed for such a prodigious effort.
But it's the list Gzowski chose to write down that interests me. All those prime ministers and the Queen and Giller Prize candidates and winners, yet a measly two Nobel Prize winners. I was surprised he even bothered to mention them, and he failed to indicate whether they were scientists, writers, economists, or peace workers. Lester Pearson, prime minister of Canada from 1963 to 1968, was the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize in 1957, but there have been four other Nobel Prize winners in science who continued to stay in Canada — Frederick Banting, Gerhard Herzberg, John Polanyi, Mike Smith — and I interviewed three of them (Banting had died in 1941). There are usually about ten to twelve winners of the prestigious awards in three science categories every year. I was the host of Quirks and Quarks for four years, and during that time I interviewed at least twenty Nobel Prize winners. A huge divide remains between scientists and the rest of society, and the paucity of scientist Nobelists on Gzowski's list reflects it. How can we as a society assess the potential impact of so many issues in which science and technology play major roles in both their creation and solution if we ignore them?