Rémi Quirion is chief scientist of the province of Québec, Canada, chief executive officer of Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ), and president of the International Network for Governmental Science Advice (INGSA), Auckland, New Zealand. His March 13, 2025 editorial about science, collaboration, and US-Canada relations in light of Mr. Donald Trump’s constant assaults against Canadian sovereignty was published in the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science magazine, Note: A link has been removed,
A partnership can be demanding, and as with any couple, can have good days and bad. The United States–Canada relationship is most definitely having a bad one. It’s difficult to fully comprehend all the dimensions of the current threats to one of the world’s strongest, longest, and multifaceted alliances. From contemptuous musings on annexation to a tariff war that could wreak economic havoc on both sides of the border, the insults and aggravations are stoking uncertainty about a relationship that has flourished for decades. …
The number one partner for Canadian science is by far the United States. For the past 5 years, 27% of all Canadian scientific publications were coauthored with American colleagues (according to a Canadian bibliometric database and the Web of Science). And the reverse is true as well. Canadian scientists are prominent international partners of American scientists in published research. Long-standing major programs between the two countries include joint research projects on the Great Lakes, the Arctic, space, health (including global public health), climate monitoring, artificial intelligence (AI), subatomic physics, and data sharing. Despite the uncertainty around tariffs, active partnerships have recently been reconfirmed and even extended between federal funding organizations in both countries. These include interactions between the US National Science Foundation and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada as well as Canada’s Social Science and Humanities Research Council. Such efforts are also strong at the regional level. For instance, research between Massachusetts and Québec focuses on climate change, biotechnology, and transportation, an alliance rooted in enduring cultural links.
… For decades, graduate students in Canada have continued training in the United States as postdoctoral fellows, and some have chosen to stay and forge fruitful collaborations with scientists in Canada. … American fellows coming to Canada to pursue their studies are not as numerous but are particularly interested in AI, quantum computing, clean energy, and environmental studies as well as the life sciences. Considering the current situation, it may be tempting for Canada to use the opportunity to lure both younger and well-established Canadian scientists back to Canada. Indeed, Canada is already receiving inquiries in that regard. …
On both sides of the border, additional collaboration should focus on building capacity to advise elected officials and high-level policy-makers on scientific issues. Going further, the International Network for Governmental Science Advice (INGSA) and its 130 member countries, of which I am chair, aim to take on this challenge globally with three chapters in the Global South (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Buenos Aires, Argentina; and Port Louis, Mauritius) as well as new European (Oxford, United Kingdom) and North American (Montreal, Canada) chapters that will be inaugurated over the next 2 years. A major objective is to increase the ability to offer advice not only at the national level but also to subregional and local officials who often must make critical decisions under emergency conditions.
Strengthening science diplomacy is more urgent than ever in North America and around the world. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the publisher of Science) and the United Kingdom’s Royal Society have just released an updated framework on this topic as did the European Commission. In Québec, the Fonds de recherche du Québec launched a program this year to create new chairs in science diplomacy that will cultivate a network of experts across scientific disciplines throughout the province. The intent is to leverage the network to establish strong international science and policy partnerships.
Canada now has a new prime minister in place, and with the stability of US-Canada relations at stake, scientific partnerships should be upheld by the leaders of both nations. …
Here’s a link and a citation,
Uphold US-Canada science by Rémi Quirion. Science 13 Mar 2025 Vol 387, Issue 6739 p. 1127 DOI: 10.1126/science.adx2966
This editorial appears to be open access.
US science no longer no. 1
Not mentioned in Quirion’s editorial is the anxiety that the American scientific community appears to be suffering from. The days when US science led the world have either come to an end or will shortly depending on what opinion piece you’re reading. What’s not in question is that the days when US science dominated the world scene are over as this January 21, 2022 article by Jeffrey Mervis for the AAAS’s Science Insider makes clear,
A new data-rich report by the National Science Foundation (NSF) confirms China has overtaken the United States as the world’s leader in several key scientific metrics, including the overall number of papers published and patents awarded. U.S. scientists also have serious competition from foreign researchers in certain fields, it finds.
That loss of hegemony raises an important question for U.S. policymakers and the country’s research community, according to NSF’s oversight body, the National Science Board (NSB). “Since across-the-board leadership in [science and engineering] is no longer a possibility, what then should our goals be?” NSB asks in a policy brief that accompanies this year’s Science and Engineering Indicators, NSF’s biennial assessment of global research, which was released this week. (NSF has converted a single gargantuan volume into nine thematic reports, summarized in The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2022.)
…
“It would be the height of hubris to think that [the United States] would lead in everything,” Phillips [Julia Phillips, an applied physicist who chairs the NSB committee that oversees Indicators] says. “So, I think the most important thing is for the United States to decide where it cannot be No. 2.”
At the top of her priorities is sustaining the federal government’s financial support of fundamental science. “If we lead in basic research, then we’re still in a really good position,” she says. But the government’s “record over the last decades does not give me a lot of cause for hope.” For example, Phillips says she is not optimistic that Congress will approve pending legislation that envisions a much larger NSF over the next 5 years, or a 2022 appropriations bill that would give NSF a lot more money right away.
…
Falling behind
[Note: The graphic which illustrates the statistics more clearly has not been reproduced here.]
The United States trailed China in contributing to the growth in global research spending over the past 2 decades. China 29% United States 23% South Korea& Japan 9% Other Asia 7% Other 14% European Union 17% Contribution to global R&D growth (Graphic) K. Franklin/Science; (Data) The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2022/National Science Foundation
…
Canadians certainly. know a thing or two about not being no. 1 and maybe we could offer some advice on how to deal with that reality.
In the meantime, the US looks more and more frantic as it attempts to come to terms with its new status both scientifically and in every other way.