Rotman Dean Wants the Money Targeted for Science Research

Dean Roger Martin’s remarks in the Globe and Mail yesterday threaten Canada’s intellectual infrastructure and therefore merit the attention of all Canadians, especially policymakers planning the upcoming federal budget and researchers in Canada’s universities.

After claiming that Canadian business schools are broke ($200M Campaign, New building), Martin cites statistics comparing the percentage of students in a discipline versus the percentage of tri-council research funding given to that discipline. Martin argues that the percentage of students in a discipline should equal (or at least influence) the percentage of tri-council funding given to that discipline. This is a terrible idea. Martin appeals here to the value of fairness (“In business….it’s a 10 to 1 cut”). If taken seriously, Martin’s reallocation plan restricts policymakers from defining the government’s research investment portfolio; it prevents them from making targeted investment decisions. The plan potentially forces that money be poured into frivolous disciplines which happen to be popular with undergraduates. Science policy should not be determined by a popularity contest among undergraduate major choices. I prefer the old ways to think: scientifically, strategically.

Martin responds to a question concerning “competitiveness”. He identifies six technology sectors in the economy and reports that only 1.6% of the workforce is in those sectors. He goes on to say:

“What makes a country prosperous is not investment in science and technology. It is businesses producing high paying jobs by having unique products and processes that a customer needs.”

I’m sorry but this is hubris which self-serves his business enterprise. This viewpoint will hurt Canada in the long term if taken seriously now. Basic scientific research has produced (among other things):

• electricity (lights, motors,…)
• vaccines (partly why you are not already dead)
• transistors (basis for computers, cell phones, …)
• encryption (enabling online financial transactions, secure communications)
• combustion engines (transportation infrastructure, mining, oil industry, …)
• financial derivatives (risk management, banking strategy)
• search engines (information management)

What percentage of the workforce relies on these developments? In contrast, what basic elements of the modern economy can be attributed to MBAs?

Martin highlights a list of technology companies (Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Cisco and Intel) and reports that many of their CEOs have MBAs. Look up the history of these companies and you will find:

• Bill Hewlett and David Packard were electrical engineers.
• Microsoft
  • Bill Gates was a math major/computer scientist at Harvard before founding Microsoft.
  • Paul Allen also studied computer science.
  • Steve Ballmer majored in mathematics and economics.
• Apple
  • Steve Wozniak is a computer scientist and an electrical engineer.
• Cisco
  • Len Bosack started as a computer scientist.
  • Sandra Lerner has a Bachelor’s degree in political science, a master’s degree in econometrics and a master’s degree in statistics and computer science.
• Intel
  • Gordon Moore PhD in Chemistry and minor in Physics.
  • Robert Noyce Ph.D. in physics
• Same story for google (Sergey Brin is a computer scientist/mathematician, Larry Page is a computer scientist).
• Same for facebook.
• Same for Research in Motion, ….

MBA CEOs may find efficient ways to bring widgets to the market. But the widgets are invented by scientists and engineers through basic research targeting science and engineering, not business education or business research. Misconceptions about the impact and role of basic research funding by business leaders may be one obstruction contributing to Canada’s innovation gap.

The challenges we face in Canada, and as human beings on earth, require new ideas. The long research lines of science (pioneered by Galileo, Newton, Gauss, Euler, Darwin, Riemann, Einstein, Curie, Schrödinger…) have consistently produced, and therefore merit vigorous and consistent government funding.