25 years ago, in late August 1998, something interesting happened in Canadian atmospheric science:
A large Canadian scientific stratospheric balloon was launched from Saskatchewan on August 24, 1998. It was intended to have a flight lasting about 24 hours and stay relatively near its launch site. Instead, it went on an unexpected adventure across an ocean and into several countries’ airspaces. Fighter jets were tasked with taking it down. World news organizations covered the updates.
This is the MANTRA 1998 story.
What is a stratospheric balloon?
It’s a very large balloon, typically filled with Helium, that carries a scientific payload (instruments and support systems) weighing up to ~a tonne (1000 kg) into the stratosphere (15 to ~50 km altitude).
They can be as tall as the CN Tower observation deck!
Stratospheric balloons like MANTRA are much larger & complex than common weather balloons, which also are typically Helium filled and carry instruments into the stratosphere. But those payloads are very small and light: ~250 g. That makes MANTRA’s scientific sensor payload (~300 kg) about 1200 times larger. Some sensor payloads are even larger.
Eureka Weather Station balloon launch preparations.
MANTRA was 150 meters high or about the size of a 25-story building when at stratospheric altitudes.
Photo showing MANTRA98 being prepared for launch, overnight August 23/24, 1998.
The MANTRA balloon included a variety of instruments designed to measure ozone chemistry-related atmospheric gases. There were also systems for power and control of the balloon. Its gondola was 2 m × 2 m × 2 m in size, constructed using a light aluminum frame. The total payload weighed 630 kg.
Schematic of MANTRA gondola from Strong et al. 2005.
More specifically, MANTRA instruments sought to acquire:
Vertical profiles of: NO2, HNO3, HCl, CFC-11, CFC-12, N2O, CH4, temperature, and aerosol backscatter from balloon instruments.
Total columns of: O3, NO2, SO2, aerosol optical depth by ground-based spectrometers.
It has been a long road, but I have at last reached a significant milestone:
I’ve finished my Ph.D.
Working towards this goal at U of T’s Physics Dept. has been a difficult but rewarding experience. I’m thankful to many people. My supervisor, Prof. Kim Strong, especially, as well as my fieldwork teammates. Graduate school is an opportunity to grow and change. I’ve tried to make the most of it. I thought I’d reflect on a few highlights.
Fieldwork at PEARL
Travelling to the frozen northern edge of Canada each winter to maintain and operate instruments at the end of Polar Night was an incredible experience. (Part one of my articles about the campaigns for U of T News; a Virtual Tour of PEARL slideshow.)
Dan looks through boxes of equipment at the start of a PEARL campaign.
Spending a month at a time in an extremely remote and cold environment isn’t for everyone. But it was a great fit for me. I have developed a great affection for Canada’s Arctic.
Volodya and Dan carry Brewer spectrophotometer to the roof of the PEARL Ridge Lab (photo credit: Pierre Fogal)
In addition to the opportunity to contribute to important research – the measurements we took during campaigns was used to study the Canadian Arctic atmosphere, but also contributed to international networks studying our changing global atmosphere and validate satellite measurements – it was also an opportunity to develop and apply my interest in photography. I am delighted that the photos I took while at PEARL have been used in national newspapers, on the covers of science journals, and more. It was great fun.
Dan Weaver taking photos on Ellesmere Island, in the Canadian Arctic (Photo Credit: Paul Loewen)
During my first trip to PEARL in 2012, funding for the lab was ended as part of systematic cuts to Canadian science. My longstanding interest in politics primed me to take action. I wrote letters to politicians, talked to the media, contributed to science advocacy organizations, and helped to organize science marches in Toronto.
Marching down major streets of Canada’s largest city was an exhilarating experience. Most of all, I met incredible people also advocating for science in Canada.
Dan kicks off the 2017 Toronto March for Science (photo credit: Paul Martin)
Sharing PEARL’s Arctic research with the public
I believe PEARL’s work is important. But until I was on Kim’s research team, I had never heard of it. Nor was I aware of Canada’s incredibly successful science satellite, the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE). I tried to raise the profile of these research projects. I can’t claim all Canadians know about PEARL and ACE. But I’d like to think that my school visits in Ontario and Nunavut, dozen public talks, social media channels, and other efforts have broadened recognition of their importance.
Social media can be a fun way to highlight fieldwork. Even if it’s exchanging jokes about how Eureka resembles an ice planet in a galaxy far, far away…
Science is largely funded by the public. I believe scientists should actively seek to connect with the public.
Dan giving a Story Collider talk about PEARL fieldwork (photo credit: Ally Chadwick, @JustMyFreckles)
Travel to conferences
I travelled to two major international conferences during grad school: the 2014 American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco and the 2018 European Geophysical Union (EGU) meeting in Vienna. It was gratifying to present my research. Connecting with researchers from around the world was eye-opening and inspiring.
A keynote at AGU by former-US astronaut and then-NOAA chief Kathryn Sullivan still occasionally surfaces in my head. She discussed how she saw NOAA as America’s ‘environmental intelligence’ organization, which I thought was an interesting way to frame its work. For some audiences, I imagine it is more effective than focusing on the inherent value of environmental protection and science – even though I find the latter persuasive.
Dan discusses PEARL water vapour measurement research during poster session
In addition to conferences, I attended meetings of an international network PEARL measurements contribute to, giving me the chance to visit Switzerland, Japan, and Korea. I spent two weeks exploring Switzerland and Japan after the meetings with a friend of mine, Nathan. We had a great time on both trips. Both times I was left with the clear realization that Canada has really poor rail system… (I write this while on a train between Toronto and Ottawa that is an hour late…)
Japanese Shinkansen train that travels at 300 km/hr. VIA Rail can’t even dream this ambitious!
Starting an environmental organization on campus
I greatly enjoyed the interdisciplinary conversations I had with people at the U of T School of the Environment, where I took a collaborative program. I created an organization to foster a sense of community amongst the grad students there, the Graduate Environmental Students’ Association. One highlight for me was inviting Jennifer Baichwal to do a Q&A at a U of T screening of Watermark, a documentary she produced that explored society’s connections with water in collaboration renown Canadian photographer Edward Burtynsky. We held a screening of Watermark and had a Q&A with her. The execution of that event happened after I left GESA; it was nice to be able to sit back and enjoy it once the day arrived.
Dan moderating a panel discussion about neonicotinoids for a GESA event at U of T
Teaching
Before grad school and my research internship at the Toronto Atmospheric Observatory (I have an interest in rooftop views), I took a degree in education and became an Ontario-certified physics and civics teacher. When I started grad school, I was keen to dive into duties as a Teaching Assistant. The department recognized my interest and qualifications and gave me opportunities to apply those skills as a Senior TA. I trained new graduate students in teaching and managed a large team of TAs for a first-year physics course.
Dan discussing science engagement at U of T’s Rawtalk Live event
Even more interesting, I co-created a pilot course connecting science students with entrepreneurship on campus. I worked with a Rotman School Prof. to give top U of T science undergrads a chance at applying their analytical skills on the real-world challenges faced by U of T startup companies. It was an good experience for everyone involved and it was a reminder to me that most students don’t go into academia after they graduate. I continue to believe we should do more to connect university undergraduate students with experiences and information related to non-academic career paths.
What’s next?
The journey was fulfilling, frustrating, and fun. I’d love to travel to PEARL one last time, but that’s unlikely. It’s time for something new.
I’m aiming to keep to keep engaged with the themes that defined my life over the last decade: physics and education, science and society, and interdisciplinary environmental issues. I’d like to fit in some music and outdoors time, too.
But where exactly I’m headed will be my next post. Onwards to 2019!
All parties agree Canada needs to do more to foster innovation and the commercialization of research. For decades, Canada has failed to effectively capitalize on its strong research universities to foster innovative companies. The Conservative, NDP, and Liberal platforms commit Canada to investing in research that supports innovation generally, as well as the manufacturing, agriculture, and natural resources (e.g. forestry, mining, fisheries) sectors specifically. The NDP and Conservatives commit to supporting the space industry. Despite being equipped with Canada’s first astronaut, the Liberals don’t mention the Canadian Space Agency or the space industry.
Beyond innovation, platforms diverge.
The Conservatives view science narrowly, and treat it almost exclusively as a tool for economic development. As the Harper-appointed President of the National Research Council said a few years ago, “scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value.” In essence, that is the Conservative platform on science.
There are three exceptions to the Conservative’s singular emphasis on private-sector research needs. The Conservatives also pledge to fund “cutting-edge health research”, specifically targeting improvements to palliative care, cancer treatment, and the Canada Brain Research Fund. They would also continue to fund research into the root causes of terrorism. (A dramatic change of mind from a Prime Minister that once told Trudeau not to “commit sociology”.) Lastly, the Conservatives included a plainly worded vague commitment to provide “ongoing support for” the granting councils that fund most university research in Canada (NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR). This makes the recent editorial cartoon musing that the Conservatives wish to eliminate science altogether at least slightly exaggerated.
These Conservative platform pieces are laudable policies. However, much is missing.
Public interest science, designed to inform politicians and Canadians about pressing environmental, health, and social issues, is absent from the Conservative platform. However, their governing record offers insights into what role they think science should play in government policy. While in power, the Conservatives have dismissed the expertise of federal scientists as mere opinion, demonstrated a worrisome lack of scientific literacy (e.g. here, here, and here), cut research funding, fired thousands of public scientists, and muzzled government scientists. (Longer lists are available elsewhere.) There is no indication this pattern will change. Indeed, financial planning documents show that further cuts to government science programs are planned (e.g. Environment Canada resources will be cut annually).
The NDPand Liberal Party propose a more expansive role for science and evidence. Both platforms commit restoring the long-form census and increasing research funding. Both parties commit to making government data freely available. Both parties support allowing publicly-funded scientists to openly speak to the public and media about research results (a popular policy amongst Canadians, according to a Maclean’s poll). Both have committed to restoring environmental protections lost when the Fisheries Act was gutted and the Navigable Waters Protections Act was eliminated.
Significantly, and in contrast to the Conservatives, the NDP and Liberals propose creating institutions that would advise politicians of facts relevant to policy issues, and help inform government decisions with the best available evidence. To accomplish this, the NDP would create the Office of the Parliamentary Science Officer and a Scientific Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. These institutions would “ensure that our government always has access to the best possible scientific advice from experts in all fields.” The Liberals, meanwhile, promise to enhance Parliamentary committees with non-partisan research staff, and create a Chief Science Officer with a mandate to ensure government science is publicly available, scientists can speak freely and that scientific analysis is considered in government decisions. Our G7 partners all have science advisors. The U.S. has a well-resourced Office of Science and Technology Policy. It’s long past time that Canada catches up to the needs of 21st century policymaking.
If the Liberals and NDP find themselves in a minority Parliament, science offers fertile opportunities to find common ground. There are, however, differences between the NDP and Liberals.
The NDP platform mentions science and research the fewest times of all. However, they make substantial commitments. Similar to the Conservatives and Liberals, they would promote innovation and industrial/business-focused research. Uniquely, the NDP would create funding for women’s organizations and community-based health research. They also want to make it “easier for businesses to access government support for innovation, talent and R&D.” It is unclear what the NDP believe is lacking in the federal government’s literal concierge service for industrial research support.
The Liberal platformoffers more to science and research than either the NDP or Conservatives. The Liberals offer specific commitments that repair some cuts to science under the Conservatives, including investments in freshwater research and the Experimental Lakes Area, enhancements to support for marine and ocean science and pollution monitoring, and funding for Canada Research Chairs in sustainable technology. These proposals don’t match the scale of losses incurred over the last decade. But they are a start.
The Liberals included a section devoted to “Evidence-Based Policy”, which includes general commitments similar to the NDP (e.g. “Government should base its policies on facts”) but also specific commitments and details which are unique. Not only would they restore the long-form census, they also commit to expanding data collection by Statistics Canada (e.g. “including detailed labour market information) and “make Statistics Canada fully independent.” The latter point is significant, and aims to prevent another instance of critical data becoming compromised by politics.
The Liberals also propose expanding entrepreneurship programs, clean technology research funds, and co-op placements for science, math, and engineering students.
Overall, in my view, the Liberal Party platform contains the best set of commitments to support science, use evidence in government decisions, and leverage Canada’s tremendous research talent for Canadians’ benefit.
I nonetheless hope that – no matter who forms the next government – Canada creates a respected and valued place for knowledge, data, and science. There are good ideas in all three platform documents. But it is action that will help Canadians. If the Liberals and NDP keep their word and make decisions based on the best data, and release that data to the public, Canadian society and democracy will benefit immensely. Time will tell.
Access all platform documents conveniently from the CBC here.
I have left my raw notes/copied reference text from the platforms here.
It’s inspiring to see a Canadian and a Canadian experiment sharing the 2015 Nobel Prize in physics. This is significant international recognition of Canadian scientific excellence.
I studied the neutrino experiments in Canada and Japan in detail in undergrad physics courses (see this YouTube video for a fun explanation of neutrino oscillation using pies). It’s fascinating science. However, these are example of fundamental research with no obvious or immediate commercial application. Regrettably, our current government has implemented policies that limit this type of science in Canada.
Consider an illustrative example: the current President of Canada’s National Research Council, appointed by the Prime Minister, has stated that “scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value.” Yikes. I disagree. Commercialization of research and innovation is a good thing. But it shouldn’t come at the expense of basic research. Frequently, research grants now require industry partners. This makes it very difficult for many research streams which may not align with industry wishes. If you cut off fundamental “blue sky” research, you turn off the tap fuelling the technology-driven knowledge economy. It’s short sighted.
When lasers were first invented, they had no immediate applications. It took decades, but eventually their commercial value was immense. Even neutrino research is leading to new technology and ideas with the potential to help with border security (scanning cargo containers for nuclear material), and maybe even mining and communication. It’s impossible to predict where research into the nature of the universe will go. But it’s worth pursuing.
The Liberals and the NDP both have significant elements in their platforms about supporting Canadian science. The Conservatives? They’ve been cutting research budgets, misunderstanding innovation, and firing scientists for a decade. I can’t find anything about science on their website. It’s time for their “subtle darkening of Canadian life” (as described in a recent NY Times article) to come to an end. It’s time for Canada to step back into the light, and vote for a government that values and supports science this election.
I’m an ardent supporter of Evidence for Democracy (E4D), and am a member of their Board of Directors. E4D is a non-partisan non-profit organization aiming to “support strong public policies built on the best available evidence for the health and prosperity of all Canadians.” I encourage you to check us out.
Follow E4D on Facebook and Twitter to stay up-to-date on issues concerning Canadian science policy. Or get email updates.
There are many aspects of Canada’s science policy motivating me to be involved with E4D. I’ve highlighted some of them here. I’m frustrated by the current Canadian government’s direct cuts to research grants, and to government-conducted science in the public interest. I’m concerned the ongoing muzzling of Canadian federal government scientists undermines our democracy and national policies. Lastly, the Harper government does not seem to value science, and research (despite its lofty claims).
Graduate studies in physics become wrapped up in politics
Two years ago (2012), I experienced a political shock to my scientific life. I was excitedly conducting fieldwork at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL). I was a relatively new graduate student at the time, and I was impressed by the work being conducted at the lab (topics include Arctic, climate, ozone, pollution, and atmospheric dynamics). PEARL is part of many national and international research networks which benefit immensely from its valuable location and sophisticated instrumentation. It was thrilling to be part of a great science team, and a privilege to experience a part of the country very few people visit. In fact, its salience was underscored during the previous year’s research campaign: the team had measured the formation of the first-ever (observed) Arctic ozone hole. This had happened regularly in Antarctica, but not in the Arctic. This development is not good news, and PEARL is the only Canadian ground facility situated far enough North and equipped to study such phenomena.
Adjusting a sun tracker on the roof of PEARL
Half-way through our research campaign PEARL’s funding was cut. Once you lose a permanent installation like PEARL, situated in a dramatically isolated, challenging environment, it’s very difficult to get back. I couldn’t understand why. We didn’t cost much money, contributed to the public good, had an international reputation for excellent science, and the support and backing of multiple government agencies. I started the Save PEARL Facebook and Twitter accounts. 10 months later, we would get a reprieve – though with substantially scaled back operations. I’ve gone to international science meetings where people quietly wonder… what’s going on in Canada?
Cuts to Canadian research funding
PEARL was not an isolated case. Labs across the country, in a variety of fields, are being shut. Grants have been re-organized, cut, and restructured (for example, the NSERC Major Resources Support program was cut and not replaced. It provided operational funding for dozens of significant research facilities). Extensive lists of closures can be found elsewhere (e.g. CBC cuts summary, John Dupuis’s blog). What’s often striking is not only the significance of the work that is being cut. It’s the wasteful treatment of taxpayer investment. To take one example, the Kluane research facility was granted $2 million to renovate in 2012, based on five decades of excellent research and the government’s desire to bolster Canada’s northern infrastructure. A year later (2012), the government cut all funding from it. It’s not just a loss for Canadian science, it’s a waste of taxpayer investments in research infrastructure and expertise.
Cuts to government (public interest) science
It’s not just grants to University-based research that has undergone dramatic changes and cuts. Government science has suffered immensely. The DFO (now “Fisheries and Oceans Canada”) has had a great deal of cuts. $100 million at least. It no longer does marine mammal toxicology. Most people working in ocean pollution have lost their jobs. Famously, the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area was determined to be no longer within its mandate (Save ELA!). Environment Canada is suffering the same dramatic level of staff and research cuts. The Canadian Space Agency doesn’t have research scientists anymore! It seems the Canadian government is actively shedding its use of science in policy making. The world’s foremost scientific journal, Nature, expressed concern about Canada’s support for science.
Evidence for Democracy is working hard at the moment to develop an authoritative, interactive portal to information about this Canada-wide culling of scientific research capacity. Help us by volunteering or donating.
Libraries
Nature recently returned to the question of Canadian science policy when dramatic cuts to government science libraries splashed into the media. Indeed, government libraries have been cut substantially, affecting Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada particularly. Access to materials important to the work of Canadian researchers has been undermined. The government has not been transparent about the criteria used to decide what materials it discarded and what materials it kept. Scientists have spoke out, arguing important records have not been systematically kept, and not all material appears available digitally. Some materials have even been thrown in the dumpster.
Federal scientists are rumoured to have even started to create informal libraries in their own homes, in order to preserve access to resources needed to do their jobs. This led to a hilarious (but sad) Rick Mercer sketch. It’s two minutes of fun, and hits an important point. Scientists in the federal government are being fired by the thousands. Those that remain are having their ability to work undermined.
New strict controls limiting the ability for government scientists to speak to the public and media is another significant issue. 86% of Canadian federal scientists would face censure or retaliation for speaking about decisions that would harm the health and safety of Canadians, a recent survey revealed. Evidence and democracy are connected. If Canadian scientists *know* policies are damaging to the country, they should be required, not prevented, from expressing that point of view. Canadians should demand the right to be informed. Regrettably, the Harper government has changed the Code of Conduct for federal employees – demanding loyalty to the political government instead of to taxpaying Canadians. This is a fundamental shift away from government transparency, a dramatic twist of accountability, and a direct effort to undermine an informed and engaged public.
Nature published a column about the muzzling issue here.
Evidence for Democracy has a website and petition about the censorship of Canadian scientists. Check out Science: Uncensored.
While attending the Canadian Science Policy Conference this past November, I had the opportunity to chat with Deputy Minister of Industry Canada, John Knubley. I asked him about the survey and the issue of muzzling. He said much of the issue was a misunderstanding, but that part of it was a difference in values between the political government and the rest. He was guarded in talking about it. But the difference in “values” rings true.
Canadian science policy
The values driving this government’s policies are not in line with Canadian values as I see them. I value a well-informed public. I value evidence-informed public policy. I want a long-term vision for Canadian prosperity supported by investment in basic research and balanced with environmental protection.
The government is currently re-examining its science and technology policy. However, there is no indication substantial changes will occur. Among the most important missteps in its draft paper is the continued lack of support for any research that doesn’t have a direct and immediate potential to be commercialized. Supporting industry and innovation is important. But creating new technology products isn’t the exclusive purpose of science. And innovation ultimately relies on fundamental, basic science – which is being cut in the name of supporting business innovation. Transforming Canada’s research capacity into a literal “concierge” to industry limits the ability for research to benefit Canadians. Canada needs research to generate more than tech products.
See Evidence for Democracy’s full submission to the Government of Canada regarding the new science and technology policy.
How we value science and knowledge in our society shapes our future. I’m concerned the current government is making important mistakes. I feel compelled to take action. E4D has many great ideas in development that can make an impact on Canadian science policy and benefit Canadians. We could use your help. Join and support the Canadian science advocates at Evidence for Democracy!
Walking down University Ave. during the Canada-wide E4D led “Stand Up for Science” rally in Toronto.
