I think I began my presentation on research by indicating that the federal government had significantly increased the funding for research. What I was talking about was the kind of pressure there is to focus research in more applied or more commercially viable areas.
If you look at the presentations of the granting councils to you; if you look at the discussion in the research community; if you go back to four or five years ago, when the Prime Minister's advisory council on science and technology created the expert panel on the commercialization of university research; if you look at the discussions, which I'm sure all of you have been part of, around the concept of innovation, which does not mean innovation as the dictionary would define it but means commercialization, all of that will demonstrate that the climate is very much one of trying to skew things toward what will pay off. And that's understandable, because people want benefits from the research they fund. But the way to skew things is to encourage, informally and formally, more “commercialize-able” ventures.
I guess all I'm saying is that we're not opposed to commercialization. In fact, we benefit from commercialization. It's just that we can't forecast what's going to be done. We're trying to dampen down the pressure to have a commercialization screen applied, whether by the federal government or by granting councils or by universities, which are spending enormous amounts of moneys in technology transfer offices and various other initiatives.
So very much the climate in which we work is where the commercialization side of things is touted. We want to keep reminding...and I'm very happy to hear your words and your view that there is a great value attached to basic research. We certainly think that's justified.