Canada’s new Chief Science Adviser answers your questions
More than dual years after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau initial betrothed to designate a new arch scientist during a 2015 election, this week he announced Dr. Mona Nemer would be Canada’s new Chief Science Advisor. Prime Minister Trudeau said, “She will yield recommendation to safeguard we have a justification we need to make good decisions for all Canadians – decisions that will assistance us to strengthen and grow a center category and build an economy that works for everyone.”
Originally from Lebanon, Dr. Nemer did her PhD in Chemistry during McGill University. Prior to her new purpose as a country’s arch scientist, she was a Director of a Molecular Genetics and Cardiac Regeneration Lab, and vice-president of investigate during a University of Ottawa.
We asked a Quirks Quarks assembly if they had questions for Dr. Nemer about how she’d advise a Prime Minister. Here are some of her answers.
This talk has been edited for length and clarity.
Bob McDonald: Well given we are Canada’s new arch scholarship advisor, we asked Canadians what questions they’d like to ask you. Our initial doubt echoes a vital anticipating of a Fundamental Science Review, differently famous as a “Naylor Report,” that is that a supervision should support investigator-led investigate over government-priority driven research. So a initial doubt comes from Joe Casey on Twitter.
What are your views on a change of practical contra oddity driven research?
—
@JoeCasey16
Dr. Mona Nemer: Clearly I’m a clever believer of find research, of questioner research. This is how we conducted my whole career. And we consider we have some good successes to uncover from countless labs around a country. we consider we need to remember that investigate is a continuum that starts with discoveries, so find is a essential partial for it and find investigate — we don’t know to that area it’s going to be applied, and as we good know it mostly is practical to things that we never illusory before.
BM: Our subsequent doubt about appropriation comes from Jim Woodgett. He’s a Director of Research during a Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute.
Dr. Jim Woodgett: Part of her charge is to consider and suggest ways for a supervision to support high peculiarity investigate within a sovereign system. As she apparently knows, Dr. David Naylor was consecrated by Minister Duncan, a Minister of Science, to furnish a report, that endorsed an boost or a reinvestment to revive appropriation levels to that achieved in 2007. So my doubt is, does she consider that a supervision will be to broach on this mercantile ask?
MN:Â I consider that it’s transparent that Canada has depressed behind a counterpart countries, a OECD countries. And since it should matter to Canadians is that we have to sojourn competitive, since if we’re not, afterwards we’re going to remove a tellurian diversion of talent. We’re not going to be means to have mind gains and other countries will turn some-more rival in recruiting talent from around a world, including from Canada. So we consider it’s in a best seductiveness of Canada and a whole race that a scholarship complement and investigate sojourn clever and competitive. So yes, we support increasing appropriation for research.
BM: We have another doubt from Simone Larin†on Twitter.
Is there a systematic subject that stands out to her as wanting a many open courtesy in Canada right now? #scicomm
—
@simonelarin
MN: Climate change is on everyone’s mind, after a summer that you’ve seen, and a several summers and winters that we’ve seen. Climate change is a reality, not a fiction, a systematic information is transparent on this. we consider that we need to hurl adult a sleeves and residence it. Science and a investigate are a vicious components of a solutions.
BM: Our subsequent doubt comes from a executive executive of Evidence for Democracy.
Dr. Katie Gibbs: Climate scientists right now are endangered that their categorical source of appropriation is drying up. The supervision didn’t replenish appropriation for a Climate Change and Atmospheric Research account that runs out during a finish of this year. This means that vicious investigate programs like a high Arctic hire PEARL are set to close. Would we advise a supervision to keep a Climate Change and Atmospheric Research account running?
MN: Of course, a meridian change portfolio is rubbed by a Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Minister McKenna. we positively demeanour brazen to assisting her and her dialect in any way. If they ask for my assistance and advice, I’ll positively get onto it.
BM: We’ve seen a series of Northern stations, that is where a many meridian change is function in Canada, being being close down or reduced in their appropriation and their support…
MN: Yeah, we consider we lift an critical question. we consider we’re gonna need, as a village and as a country, to demeanour delicately into this and yield a roadmap for sustainability.
BM: Our subsequent doubt comes from Sarah Boon on Twitter.
Also, what will Dr. Nemer do to residence gender and farrago issues in #cdnsci? https://t.co/GBwCDISr0H
—
@SnowHydro
MN: Yeah that’s a high order. Gender and farrago issues in STEM are positively also really dear to my heart. Â As a womanlike scientist, I’ve gladly finished overdo during opposite levels from high schools to immature scientists and early professors and researchers. So we consider for me, it is not simply a gender or a minority arrange of gap, it’s a governmental emanate that needs to be addressed by a whole society. We all benefit from carrying some-more lady and carrying some-more farrago entering into a STEM field, being promoted, apropos leaders, and carrying some-more purpose models is really important. And I’m going to continue to do my best and my part. But we know, it requires a whole multitude to get to where we all have ambitions to be.
BM: Our final doubt comes from Chad Atkins†on Twitter.
Study from @OntScienceCtr pronounced ~half of 🇨🇦 thinks #CdnSci is a “matter of opinion” – does @ChiefSciCan consider this can change? #BigPicture
—
@chemchad
MN: Let me initial contend that yes, we know this survey, and we am utterly rapt and during times, we would contend unsettled by it. Science is not about beliefs and opinions. Science is about facts. We all have a shortcoming in creation certain that Canadians know this and know also a scholarship that underlies, in many ways, decisions they make in their bland lives from food, food security, food quality, decisions about transportation, about health, we name it. So this is an critical consideration. And we unequivocally demeanour brazen to operative with many stakeholders on enhancing scholarship education in Canada.
BM: Just one final thing, as a scholarship confidant do we have a summary to Canadians about a purpose of scholarship and Canada’s position in a world?
MN: we indeed do. we wish Canadians to know that there is good scholarship going on in Canada and that they should be really unapproachable of a scholarship that goes on, and a scholarship that has come out of Canada. Be proud. You know, scholarship is partial of a enlightenment of a identity. Please be engaged, continue seeking questions, attend as most as we can. It will all make us stronger.
Article source: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/september-30-2018-1.4312266/canada-s-new-chief-science-adviser-answers-your-questions-1.4312268?cmp=rss