Letter to the Editor of the Globe and Mail

Sir/Madam,
The calls for Mr. Clement’s resignation from members and supporters of the Greater Sudbury area continue to roll in without any coverage from your publication. The Minister of Industry had publicly taken the side of a foreign company in a major labour dispute affecting over 3000 Canadian workers when he should have remained neutral. He has insulted the fair, economically diverse and vibrant City of Greater Sudbury. By having a national leader speak so poorly of our city hurts future investment potential and hurts civic pride and to do so haphazardly and without merit is reckless and shameful. Furthermore, taking sides during a labour dispute cripples the autonomy of both Vale Inco and the United Steelworkers in working towards a fair contract and could have derailed and delayed progress in their negotiations. As such Mr. Clement must issue an immediate formal apology along with his resignation.
-Rafiq Rahemtulla – Sudbury, ON

A Letter to the Editor of The Toronto Star

Sir/Madam,

Your article, ‘Legal aid boycott hits native communities’, highlights the disproportionate danger of poor public investment on already marginalised groups. As a society we allegedly value the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial, however, in practice we put more money into prosecuting people than defending them. This hardly seems fair.

The courts, both civil and criminal, are a public service and must be equally accessible for all the people of Ontario for them to serve their purpose of dispensing justice and enforcing the laws of the land. Attorney General Chris Bentley should be ashamed of the perversion of fairness in compensation for legal aid certificates and the resultant perversion of justice in our courts and society as a whole.

-Rafiq Rahemtulla - Sudbury, ON

A Letter to the Editor of The Globe and Mail

Sir/Madam,

Your article 'Goodyear questions Mideast forum funds' did not state that SSHRC, as well as NSERC and CIHR, are mandated to run at arms-length from government to prevent political interference. While the controversy of the mideast crisis is clearly at play, Mr. Goodyear’s actions are a sign of a far more systemic problem of government interference in academia.

Universities are the only place we have set aside in our society that the great debates and controversies of our time can be freely discussed without fear of retribution. The freedom to take an unpopular stance on an issue is a fundamental requisite of creative problem solving; this is the rationale behind tenure.

Academics must be permitted to think, explore and debate without fear of persecution. As such the National Graduate Caucasus’ and the CAUT’s call for the dismissal of Mr. Goodyear is both appropriate and necessary. The last thing we need in these difficult times is to have our best and brightest minds afraid to seek creative solutions to the problems we face.

Sincerely,
Rafiq Rahemtulla – Sudbury, ON

Memorandum of Cooperation

Despite All Their Rage They’ll Still be Plenty of Rats in a Cage

On the 27th of April representatives from Japan, the European Union, the United States and Canada signed a Memorandum of Cooperation to reduce the number of animals used in product safety testing. Specifically, scientists from these countries will have to share null results as well as positive ones to avoid replication of failed experiments thereby reducing the number of animals used and to fast-track approval of alternative methods between the signatory agencies.

Many are referring to this as a great leap forward for the cause of animal welfare. However, neither the memorandum, nor any of the discussions surrounding it make any mention of the number of animals that it will save. The Canadian representative, David Blakey is from the Environmental Health Science and Research Bureau within Health Canada, and as such only has jurisdiction over regulatory policies and practices surrounding product safety and toxicity testing.

In order to determine the potential impact of the Memorandum on the three Rs, specifically, reduce, the 2007 survey (the most recent available data) on animal used compiled by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) was consulted. 10% of animal used under the auspices of the CCAC were used for testing while 4% were used for teaching and a whopping 86% were used for research (including basic, medical or veterinary). The proportions have been fairly similar for the past few years.

The 2007 survey of animal in research use from the Home Office in the United Kingdom was also consulted. Product and toxicology testing falls under “Protection of man, animals of environment”. This category accounted of only 5% of animals used in the UK.

While international cooperation among regulatory bodies and scientists can be immesely beneficial and improve efficiencies it is important to keep things in perspective. I doubt William Russell and Rex Burch who coined the 3Rs would consider this new agreement the great leap forward that the media and others are calling it. If anything it is a babystep, but at least is one in the right direction towards transparency and further collaboration rather than blanket restrictions and limitations like the new policies currently making their way through European parliament.

University Enrollment

Is War the Answer?

The global economic downturn has coincided with Laurentian University slipping into deficit. To ensure the character and quality of Laurentian is not eroded during this rough patch the former acting President Dr. Robert Bourgeois commissioned and led the drafting and publication of A Plan for Regaining Sustainability at Laurentian University. Its gist was to mitigate Laurentian’s financial woes by running deficits for three years before returning to balanced budgets in order to minimize and soften cuts. The limit deficit financing in this report, however, was still not sufficient, as such, the shortfall was proposed to be accommodated equally by increased revenue (i.e. enrollment and retention) and decreased costs (i.e. budgetary cuts).

Upon approval of this report and the subsequent 2009/10 budget the Board of Governors made clear that the deficit numbers would be not be exceeded. Any negative disparity between budgeted and actual figures would have to be compensated by further cuts. The original cuts were made in the University budget, however, the increased revenue component is uncertain and the goals (note: these are not projections) are ambitious. The magic number of increased student enrollment required to make this plan and the current budget honest is the equivalent of 482 full-time students, which is an 8% increase.

The two most conspicuous phenomena increasing post-secondary student enrollment are Ontario’s double cohort of high school students and the United State’s draft and student deferments during the Vietnam War. The former resulted in a qualitatively evident increase in full-time students at Laurentian (see figure 1, box indicates goal).This began in the fall of 2003 (an increase of 18.6%) and ended in 2007. Unfortunately, another double cohort is not only unlikely but would also leave students grossly unprepared for post-secondary education. The latter has been estimated to have raised post-secondary enrollment by 4-6%[1] (see figure 2). A draft coupled with targeted, enhanced recruitment initiatives could possible achieve this ambitious magic number of 482.

Figure 1. Laurentian University’s Full-Time Students.

---

[1] Card, D., Lemieux, T. (2000). Going to College to Avoid the Draft: The Unintended Legacy of the Vietnam War. Meetings of the American Economics Association, January 2001.

The Cost of Science

Better Read Than Dead

Scientific research is considered a public good. As such the public pays for a great deal of research through their tax dollars. These funds are allocated to scientists and projects in various ways typically involving organizations run at an arms-length from public officials like the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States.

If one were to consider the research budget of a granting agency like the NSF as the input and the number of publications as the output, efficiency as well as an average cost per publication can be estimated. The NSF research budget (corrected to 2006 US dollars) divided by the number of PubMed listings for the same year, rendering an estimate of cost per publication, were plotted by year from the inception of the NSF in 1951 till 2008 (see Figure 1). Following a sharp rise and compensatory undershoot the cost per publication has remained relatively stable around six to eight thousand dollars.


Figure 1. The cost of a scientific paper over the course of the NSF’s existence.

Interestingly the aforementioned sharp rise in the cost of science (see shaded area) is coincident with the US/Soviet space race with the sharp rise beginning with the launching of the Sputnik I in 1957 and the compensatory undershoot beginning around the Apollo 11 moon landing. The earlier phase in the period appears to be driven by a curbing of the increase in publications while the latter phase appears to be driven by larger increases in NSF funding. This could reflect the battle between keeping secrets from the enemy the maintenance of a collaborative scientific environment. If this is true, the latter seems to have pervaded the remainder of the Cold War and beyond.

The Co morbidity Paradigm

Managing Pain, Anxiety & Insomnia

On the 23^rd of April Dr. Martin Katzman from Toronto delivered a lecture on the above at NOSMs East Campus. His primary argument was that pain, anxiety and sleep disorders tend to occur in conjunction with one another and should all be treated since they can greatly affect one another. In an interesting an engaging talk he certainly conveyed the message to the clinicians present.

Sadly the pervasive lapse in logical arguments has not spared the great mind of Dr. Katzman. When trying to describe the ethological relevance of anxiety and when he becomes disordered he said.

"You're more likely to likely to die on the toilet than on an airplane"

Arguing that if people were truly afraid of dying they would avoid toilets, not airplanes. Sadly, Dr. Katzman failed to consider that people who die on toilets would die regardless of where they are as opposed to people who die on airplanes, at least when they crash, generally would not have died if they did not board that flight. Whereas boarding an airplane increases your risk of dying, albeit by a miniscule amount, sitting on a toilet does not.

Despite the excellent research done by Dr. Katzman and the S.T.A.R.T. Clinic I was also saddened that no real attention was given to primary versus secondary and tertiary disorders. Since suffering from chronic pain can cause sleep disturbances and anxiety which would not occur if there was no pain. Therefore, the population who suffers from all three types of disorders is heterogeneous. Since a person's symptoms differ from day to day, asking clients to subjectively describe the severity of their symptoms over an extended period of time (I'd reckon a month would suffice). Using the magic of lag/lead and path analyses one can make predictions about which disorder causes the others, if any since there are likely individuals who suffer from all three independently of one another. Doing this can minimize pharmacological intervention by only treating the primary condition thus avoiding the myriad side-effects of modern drugs, which in some cases will exacerbate the other disorders.