The Roles of the University

The university has faced criticism in recent years as a liberal institution (in the modern sense of social progressivism rather than the classical liberal sense of individual rights and free enterprise as discussed by Fukuyama and others). I will return to this topic at the end of this post, but to start I will focus on the role of the university as an insitution of basic science. Being in an engineering school, value is placed on the practical applications of research. How can research be translated into tools, products, or services of direct value to industry, government, or society writ large. I certainly do not disagree with there being value in such work. However, I will argue that there is also a need to not lose sight of the historical role of the university as an institution of unfettered exploration.

John Ioannidis, a physician-scientist among the most highly cited researchers in the world (about 650,000 citations), argues that public research funds should go towards exploratory research - work that is “searching through the jungle, may run into pythons, and is likely to fail in many cases”. Industry has the incentives to conduct research for which the answer is clear and the objective is a clear and marketable outcome. In medicine, one might think of the development of a new vaccine that will target a currently prevalent virus. I agree with his perspective for the most part, in that I think many in engineering have a mindset of conducting science with the aim of producing a clear output or tool. Some federal funding in Canada has this model, such as NSERC Alliance which requires the buy-in of an industry partner. One can structure the work in such a way that both basic and applied science can be completed - public dollars going towards basic science and industry match towards applied science - though it is hard and requires strategic thinking to ensure both objectives are being given their due. However, I also see such thinking arising in the NSERC Discovery Grant program, a program with the term “discovery” in the name. Many is the time that a colleague has adviced me to make sure there are “clear deliverables and tools coming out of your DG” or “discovery is in the name but do not take too many risks until you have proven yourself”. The second is a version of what Ioannidis terms the “eminence”/“evidence” dialetic. Eminence is structured around the advice of eminent scholars in the field, regardless of its basis in strong scientific evidence. Evidence is structured around the merit of the research and its basis in sound scientific logic, data, and analysis.

The recent Bouchard Report (2023) in Canada is commonly cited as identifying a lack of knowledge translation in the university. However, I believe this is a misreading of the report recommendations. The stated goals was to “better maximize the impact of investments and improve the agility and coordination of the system, particularly regarding talent development and commercialization.” This goal has a clear basis in the capitalist political economy of utility maximization. Note that the report was produced for the Minister of innovation, Science, and Industry, who has a mandate more heavily influenced by industry than scientifici inquiry. Reading deeper, The Report states that there is a need for reinvestment in Canadian research to readjust funding to match inflation and cost of living factors. Critically, The Report notes that investigator-initiated (i.e. basic) research “has plateaued while new funding has been earmarked for mission-driven or targeted research projects.” Buchard recommends the creation of a centralized funding program, with the suggested name of the Canadian Knowledge and Science Foundation. Let me finish on the topic of The Bouchard Report by noting that its eponymous author, Frédéric Bouchard is a philosopher of science! Glancing at his publication record, one would be hard-pressed to find a tangible product or industry-relevant output.

Casting a broad and historical net, the Academy has always had a role separate from direct industrial relevance. Greek Socratic academies, Arabic Madrasas, and British Oxford-style debate, in all of these places the technocat would find a frustrating level of abstraction, erudition, and dreaming. In my view, we can think of the rising utilitarian view of the univeristy as comorbid with the rising criticism of its “liberal wokeness”. If the university as a philosophical institution of learning and exploration is perceived to expouse the a single (and some would argue) wrong ideological perspective, then it must justify itself on capitalist grounds. That is, if we discount its role as an institute independent of political currents, then its value must be “internalized” in the economic parlance through justification as a market actor. Under such a role, products and services of direct value become the outputs of the university. Again, the two purposes are not mutually exclusive even with a single scholar. Leonardo Da Vinci produces great works of art and also engineering innovations. Ibn Sina was both a philosopher and a physician. John Ioannidis, who partially motivated this post, is best known for his advocacy of evidence-based medicine but started his career as a clinician. I love providing useful insights to my city, province, and county, but I have an equal passion for questioning assumptions and critiquing systems informed by that applied research. Let us value the improvers of existing cities, charters of known lands, and explorers of wilderness with equal weights.