Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak with you today in my personal capacity as a Canadian and as an academic living abroad.
Although I've lived outside of Canada for some years, I have a strong connection to Canada. I visit frequently and have much experience with the Canadian grant funding system, having sat on the NSERC discovery grant committee for ecology and evolution for three years, a committee that I then co-chaired for one year. In these roles, I've read and evaluated the research programs for a large portion of ecology and evolution research in the country, so I'm well aware of the quality of Canadian science.
I wanted to tell you a little bit about myself. I grew up in Montreal and I went to McGill for my bachelor's in biology. My graduate degrees were both funded through scholarships from NSERC, first as a master's student at the University of British Columbia, and then overseas at the University of Oxford in England for my doctoral degree. I was quickly hired as a lecturer in Oxford for several years, and I was then awarded a Royal Society research fellowship, which funded my salary for eight years, allowing me to focus exclusively on my research. During that time, I moved to Imperial College and was made full professor two years ago. I've recently been awarded a large grant to develop and direct a new research centre, which will occupy me for at least the next 10 years.
I've described my background because I believe it's relevant to the committee's work, and I understand it's the reason why you've asked me here today. Having been lured out of Canada by the prospects of new opportunities, I've become embedded in the system over here. As for any career, and as I'm sure many on the committee can appreciate, it becomes more difficult to move over time. Partly this is because you learn how the system works, and partly because personal situations change; you start a family, you buy a house, and so forth, all of which anchor you in one location. I believe it's important for the committee to consider what motivates scientists to move or to stay.
How do you retain and attract the best scientists to Canada? I can speak from my personal experience.
First, top scientists are attracted by top science, and the rest, I believe, is window dressing. This is not a novel opinion and has been true since the start of the university system.
While there is an understandable desire for governments to focus on technological innovation rather than discovery science, the one is not possible without the other. The best scientists will not come to Canada and will not stay in Canada if they feel that their science will suffer. Inspiration and innovation almost always come from being in environments with other top scientists in complementary fields. This can create a positive feedback loop where strength builds on strength, and the best scientists come because the best scientists are already there.
To a large extent, the question of how to attract and retain top scientists should therefore be rooted in how science innovation can be fostered in Canada right now. I think if you build it, then they will come.
The second point I want to make is that attracting scientists and retaining scientists are two separate issues. There are significant academic costs in moving labs. It's hugely disruptive. Packing up and reassembling a lab takes time, often resulting in months of inactivity. Moving to a new university means relearning all of the internal systems and ways of doing things, and moving countries is doubly disruptive. Scientists moving to Canada for the first time need to learn how funding and hiring works and how to attract students, and they need to build their collaboration networks from scratch. Many will have young families and would need to learn how the school system works. The cost of moving is therefore very high for a scientist, so attracting the top scientists to Canada is more difficult than retaining scientists. If you want to attract the top scientists from outside the country, these significant additional costs should be considered.
My third point is that junior and senior scientists have different motivations. It often only takes a nudge in one direction early in the career to change an academic trajectory. Later career researchers—“proven talent”—are lower risk, but more costly to move and often have a shorter scientific career ahead of them. I believe the committee should carefully consider these divergent motivations when they make recommendations about how to retain scientists at different career stages.
Finally, I think its worth mentioning that you're competing for the top scientists in a global marketplace. To attract and retain the top scientists, you need to understand what financial and scientific rewards will draw them to Canada, or they'll go elsewhere. In Britain and Europe, the funding opportunities are much greater and more varied than in Canada, and the concentration of universities is also much greater and more varied. The system over here is far from perfect, but from that perspective Canada starts at a disadvantage.
Thank you very much.