It is always a dangerous thing to respond directly to reviews, I am told repeatedly by author friends of mine. Steering a successful course between the Scylla of undue touchiness and the Charybdis of last-word hubris has proven too great a match for more skillful hands than mine, and yet here I find myself rushing to pilot my little ship into the oncoming waves in an effort to directly respond to various recent reviews and statements about both First Principles and Perimeter Institute in general.
But I am determined to wade in, not so much to “set the record straight” or “tell my side of the story” (which, as one might imagine, is already done to a rather considerable extent in the book itself), but rather to instead draw attention to what in my judgment are significant public policy issues that are highlighted by my experiences at Perimeter Institute - policy issues that I'm convinced are quite relevant to many people – including, but by no means exclusively Canadians - but seem, quite oddly, to have escaped the notice of virtually everyone who has reviewed the book or commented on the story.
Like virtually all countries outside of the US, Canada does not have a particularly strong tradition of either large-scale philanthropy or strategic government research funding, so when a new institute comes along that innovatively combines the two, it surely behooves us to take notice and rigorously assess the situation in the hopes of developing a model which would be of incalculable benefit to us all. Sadly, this has not occurred in any meaningful way, despite the kerfuffle surrounding my departure as founding executive director and the subsequent publication of First Principles. Instead, the only comments and questions that were raised by the book seem to have been of a decidedly personal nature: What parts of the manuscript did Mike Lazaridis take issue with? Did I still have any contact with him? What did I think of Neil Turok, my replacement?
I have been unwilling to respond in any detail to these sorts of questions not only because they seem silly and gossipy, but because they are, in my view, hugely beside the point and quite distracting from the important lessons of the story. As I have been at pains to point out at every conceivable opportunity, Mike Lazaridis is an exceptional individual whose unique combination of largesse and leadership are the very things that Canada and the world so desperately needs. From Canada to Sweden, Australia to France, the world needs many more Mike Lazaridises to step forward and invest their time and money in a whole host of meritorious efforts that would greatly enhance our collective well-being; and I have no intention whatsoever to publicly criticize Mr Lazaridis, who deserves high praise indeed for all of his efforts.
My sincere hope for a very long time now was that this new public-private structure of research excellence that we helped established at Perimeter Institute could be objectively assessed, refined and hopefully iterated throughout the world, that I would have no hesitation to proudly point to PI as a worthy model to be emulated everywhere as a successful example of government and private philanthropy combining forces to produce an innovative and well-structured organization. That I don't feel that I can honestly give such an assessment is a considerable disappointment to me and whose responsibility, in my view, lies squarely at the feet of the government partners. When I wonder aloud, as I did in the recent Nature article, whether or not PI has developed the structural appearance of “a rich man's toy”, it is not to cast aspersions upon the philanthropist, but rather to publicly call into question the proper structural role of government in a joint public-private initiative.
Government, despite its vital position as primary funder of annual operating costs of the institute, remains a quixotic, easily distracted and uncertain partner. On what does ongoing operational support of Perimeter Institute depend? On the meeting of what particular strategic goals? By what regular review processes? Supported by which political parties or specific branches of government? Relatedly, what sort of permanent lobbying campaign should a theoretical physics institute have to maintain and why?
It is wonderful that Stephen Hawking has pledged to visit Perimeter Institute. He is, of course, a world-renowned physicist and a remarkable individual. But the fact that celebrated physicists are visiting a physics institute should hardly be surprising; and the likes of physics superstars like Penrose, Witten, Maldacena, Arkani-Hamed, Susskind and so forth have been coming for years and will hopefully continue to come to Waterloo long into the distant future. What really matters, of course, is whether or not the Institute will meet its lofty and ambitious goals for cutting edge research and dynamic outreach and held to the highest possible international standard. As it happens, I have no doubt that Turok can take them there. But when financial judgment day comes (and it comes early and often for an institute of this size and scope and impressive ambition), who will be asking the right questions? Who will be listening to what has really been accomplished? And how much will be depending, overtly or otherwise, on what should be completely extraneous factors, like the current success of a hand-held communications device company and its charismatic principals?
Regardless of what you think about Perimeter Institute per se, whether you believe it is boldly revolutionizing theoretical physics or convinced (see Joao Magueijo's recent review of First Principles in Nature) that it is an over-hyped, self-aggrandized disappointment that has shamefully capitulated to the dark forces of the academic establishment, surely we can all surely be united in desiring far greater opportunities for success throughout a whole realm of captivating human endeavours?
For this matters, of course, for far more than theoretical physics. Imagine a year or two from now some wealthy, dynamic Canadian (Irish, German, Spanish...) would-be philanthropist is motivated to create an internationally leading centre for clean energy, or music performance or teacher training and is naturally looking for government to partner with him to make it happen. Do we now have the structures in place to progressively react to such a golden opportunity? Can we find a way to utilize not only the philanthropist's ample financial resources but equally importantly his drive, ingenuity and passion while doing more than simply getting out of the way and sporadically writing him a cheque when it's politically convenient? Have we learned anything at all – good, bad or otherwise - from the Perimeter example? Might we even find a way for pro-actively encouraging such opportunities?
Just imagine the possibilities. But it all begins by taking stock.
- Howard
No comments:
Post a Comment