5.) x DCR VICE C hay Loe We LF" a vey ‘ (Less microscopic copies avatlotic pt 29 [30 G ve Ww be es t Uv UBC Rep. LF: ¥ OU A Gi MB An interview with David Suzuki ienti ists U Re c der attack tr Vi ki_in_ this provoca: on inter— view with UBC he _ interview is_the first 2 series of articles o epinio: various emb of the UBC community. Dr. Suzuki, Canada’s foremost science broadcaster and full-time member (at one-third salary) of UBC’s zoology department, says scientists are misrepr ting the relationship between research and its application. He believes that UBC starved for research succumbing to the gover ¢ and ind their research will commercial spin-offs. On the other hand, he feels human- ists, with a broader perspective that scientists lack, should speak out on the issue but remain silent. "The actions of both are a threat to tenure.” Dr. Suzuki joined UBC in 1963 and quickly blish a rep in genetics research. He has received seven honorary degrees and recently won this year’s $100,000 Royal Bank Award for Canadian Achievement and the Governor—General’s Award and a United Nations Gold Medal for "A Planet for the Taking,” a series broadcast last fall on CBC television. UBCR: With an established and successful career as a science broad— caster, why do you remain a UBC faculty member? Dr. Susuki: [ve seen a lot of academics go into either politics or the media. There are a number of Ph.Ds now working in news and current affairs on CBC television, for example. But once they become part of another scientists, funds, are allurements of y by cleimi have immediate group, they often have nothing but contempt for the one they left. There is no one more cont of coincidence that a lot of revolutionary Movements in other countries start in their universities. Unfortunately, tenure has come to mean a sinecure, distorted into a job guarantee. Once we get tenure, we think we can relax, when in fact we assume an obligation to society. Our obligation is to share our expertise with the public whenever needed without fear of reprisal. We don’t do that often enough. A few years ago we did a SRetepe of Things program for CBC television on the tar sands in Alberta. Then the only plant up there was Syncrude and it was putting out 50 to 60 tons of sulphur dioxide a day. That’s a lot of acid rain. Because of the oil crisis _then, the federal go t was at least 10 plants as big or. bigger “than Syncrude within 10 years. We went to ecologists at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary to find out about. the possible environmental effects. Not one would talk to us. They all had grants from the oil industry and would not aa lawyers than a former lawyer working for the CBC. I could feel myself drifting into that feeling. But 1 value universities as a vital institution to society ~- one 1 am committed to and will defend. That’s why I've tried to keep a toehold here. I think it is important as much to me as it may be to the University for me to remain a member of this community, to feel the pressures it faces, to get angry at what government is doing to it. UBCR: You've spent at least halt of the last 10 years or so in the media, interviewing academics from other universities. That’s a unique overview. How does UBC compare? Dr. Susuki: As a broadcaster I feel I have a special insight to offer my colleagues. A lot of the criticism we academics now aim at government are aimed the wrong way. They should be aimed at ourselves. The terrible financial position we are in is the result of long years of total neglect -~ indeed, arrogance —~ on the part of faculty. We felt very special, and believed it was obvious why we mattered, and we didn’t want to soil ourselves with the vulgar activ— ity of communicating with the masses. It’s still evident today, even thought we know it is those people who pay taxes, elect politicians and decide whether their kids ought to go the university. ne UBCR: De you feel UBC faculty have an obligation to deal with the public? Dr. Susuki: Of course, for very selfish reasons -~— to maintain its support. But more importantly, ° universities are elite institutions. Society confers on them a unique privilege ——- tenure. Tenure has allowed me, for example, to do what I’ve done in the media without fear of being turfed out. We can explore radical, crazy ideas without fear that Victoria or Ottawa will come down on our heads. It isn’t a jeop their grants. Those people did not deserve tenure. They were holding out on the public because they had a different master. If the universities say they're going to take outside money -— and that’s fair enough, it’s been done in forestry and other areas —~— you have to say that those people should not have tenure. Tenure is not te guarantee the jobs of faculty. It’s to free their tongues. UBCR: Do you feel UBC is making unwarranted claims about the practi- cality of its expertise? Dr. Susuki: UBC is in the middle of a crisis and it comes from within as much as from without. Politicians are i that r bk should be devoted to Pulling | the country out of its Gov want us to get. into "hot" areas like robotics, biotechnology, microelectronics and they think it’s simply a matter of cranking money into those areas. But it doesn’t work that way. Getting into a titive p in or microelectronics is not like setting up a shoe factory. First of all, you have to believe in yourself, support your best and let them do what they want. But secondly, science doesn’t move linearly —— having a nice logical proposal that says, put money into this project and you'll really find a cure for hernia. A good lab may end up find— ing a useable idea from a completely unexpected . source. The key is to support good people and to give them freedom. Scientists across Canada, including UBC, are selling a false model. They are saying that if you put money into a lab with a defined goal, it will pay off directly. Our national investment in research is the lowest in the industrialized world. Canada does less than four percent of all research in the world. So the probability that one of our scientists is going to make an important discovery that can be applied is less than four per cent. I can understand politicians trying to find short-term solutions to socia! and economic problems. This is nothing new. But because of the short horizon of governments —— the next election -— they demand quick pay offs. That’s why they like megaprojects where they can pump a lot of money in and get tangible results. You can’t do that with science. Science takes a long time and the payoff isn’t obvious. Look at the history of genetic engineering. Some of the important tools came from studying digestive enzymes in snail guts, toxic P ~~ military has iarge investments in universities, then free discourse can no longer be sustained. It happencd at McGill a couple of years ago. We have not had an adequate questioning of tne role of private enterprise on campus and the relation -- ship between the academics involved and the University and the public. UBCR: Where should that dialoque come from? Scientists? Dr. Susuki: People in the humani- ties are the single most important group at universities today. That's because while science is a powerful fi in snake venom and how bacteria resist virus infection. No one could have predicted that those projects would have anything to do with biotech— nology. UBCR: What research should scientists be doing and what should they say about it? Dr. Susnki: Pm not saying we shouldn’t be supporting science: As a broadcaster, I know lay people are amazed at the ability of scientists to describe the world around us. People are deeply moved by a_ scientific description of the complexity of the ecosystem, a black hole or a cell structure. They feel uplifted and spiritually enriched by those insights. That’s what scientists do best and should do more of, not engage in a unseemly rush to make products or projects. Five years ago the existence of micro--plankton in the oceans was unknown. They can only be seen with an electron microscope and today it is believed that they are so numerous they may produce much of the oxygen in the air. Yet five years ago we didn’t even know they existed! What we have learned about the ADDS virus in a mere five years is hut ing. But pared to how much we have yet to learn about the immune system, we've barely started. As 4cientists, we should be a lot more humble. We are too anxious to apply every new insight we have, though the vast majority of those insights will probably be wrong. Scientists are in the business of dis— proving our current hot ideas. Most theories will either be modified or replaced. The only way we know which ones will be kept is to wait -- to give them time to be verified. If scientists and even engineers spent more time in describing nature, this unseemly rush to apply the little that we know would slow down. UBCR: But how do we become international players in science? Dr. Susaki: I'm writing a book called Breakthrough: Canadian Science at the Forefront. It’s about 14 Cana-— dian world-class scientists, including Harold Copp, Neil Bartlett and Gobind Khorana from UBC. Their experience shows that what matters are individuals, You don’t become a world— class presence by erecting a first—class building with all the latest equipment and then filling it with diocre ia our lives, scientists are too deeply embedded in what they’re doing to see the wider picture. Humanizis can provide perspective. They should be telling scientists, “Listen, you ¢ are extremely knowledgeable withiz your little sphere. But the consequences of your work extend far beyond your laboratories. You need a broader view and we can provide it. Yours is one way of knowing but not the only or even the best one." The university is demonstrating « profound failure by the very absence of any questioning. We're all lying down and letting people run roughshod through the university in their rush to get cash and appear to be relevant. J] can understand why scientists are going after the money. They’re only human What I don’t understand is why historians, who know better and heve « broader perspective, aren't screaming about what is going on in the Feacuiliy of Science and other applied faculties. Historians should be telling us th we've learned a massive amount, relative to what we knew in the past. But compared with what we have yei to learn, we've barely begun. Where are the philosophers whe cen tell us that there is a terrible flaw in science -—— that scientists can only look at nature in bits and pieces? A fragmented view of nature can neve: provide a complete program to manzg¢ it. Philosophers know that and should say so. The fact that those in the humani- ties are saying nothing is 2 terrivic indictment of the university. This hould be a ity in constant ferment -—~— disagreements, arguments, radically different opinions -- that’s what a diverse community of scholars exploring the enormous range of thought and creativity should be doing. UBCR: What should UBC be telling government and the public? Dr. Susaki: Silicon Valley is where it is because Stanford and Berkeley exc there. You don’t get it by building « Discovery Park. You do it by building a university full of world class scholers and everything will flow from that. Fut it takes time, and faith. Our greatest natural resource is our young people. If politicians are reall; concerned about the future direction o! the economy, they should be putting Massive amounts of money into wxivci- sities for our best people. Guz universities in B.C. have been so starved for money that we've developed people. What you must do is bring together brilliant people who then fight like hell to get enough money to see their ideas through. What we should do is support a a bunk tality and we aren’t eblc to devote the time and attention te our scholars that we should. We should be selling the idea that this is a vital place for the beat of our young first rate scientific community who then will be part of an elite international group. They become our eyes and ears to the scientific community. They will go to meetings and talk to colleagues, and bring back ideas that may be applied. UBCR: Do you perceive other dangers in closer links with government and the private sector? Dr. Susuki: Yes, for the reasons Ive already mentioned concerning tenure. When private industry or the Ed. Note: Dr. Suzuki was recently awarded the 1986 Royal Bank Award and gold medal. This annual Award is intended to recognise "2 Canadien citizen, or person domiciled in Canacz, whose outstanding achievement is of such importance that it is contributing te human welfare and the com good." Previous recipients of the award include Dr. Wilder Penfield, [His Eminence Paul-Emile Cardinal Leger, Dr. H. Northrop Frye and Hugh MacLennan.