First, a word on the issue of funding sources:
In the US, the majority of science funding is from neither government, nor philanthropy, but from private industry. Using biological/biomedical research as an example (what I am most familiar with), industry funding accounts for ~60%, federal gov't ~30% (biggest chunk from the NIH), and state gov't and foundations each account for ~5% each (JAMA 294:1333). For foundations, one of the most notable is the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which funds about $500M a year, compared to NIH's $15-20B. This funding breakdown is not unexpected: the most expensive research is developing new drugs (it takes about $1B to develop one), and the most expensive part of that research, the clinical trials (~70% of the cost), is usually financed and backed by pharmas, so a lot of the money comes directly from industry. I don't have data from the earth sciences and the physical sciences, but while I think the industry portion in those fields would be slightly less than in biomedical, the contribution from private energy companies and materials/computer companies would still be very high.
The total science funding in the US, as of 2008, is slightly less than $50B, compared Canada's $600M USD. However, the US amount is 1.5% of its GDP, whereas Canada's is 3%, so proportionally, Canada is already funding science more than the US (it is in his current budget that Obama proposes increasing the science funding to 3% of GDP over the next 10 years). Thus, while science funding in Canada is definitely small compared to the US, it is not for want of trying.
And Keithz, the reason Canadian provinces don't contribute "as much" to science funding as the American states is probably because the provinces are less financially independent/self-supporting in our system. However, MaRS is a perfect example of a research initiative where the provincial government has a significant stake. In fact, it was under the Harris/Eves government that Ontario injected significant money ($1B over 10 years) into this and a few other sci/tech initiatives, an amount that even Nature commented is un-Canadianly large (Nature 425:104). So, the provinces are certainly doing their share.
---
Back to the OT of Sekaly:
If anyone actually bothered to read the actual news, you would realize that he is not uprooting and moving shop, as the CBC would like you to believe. Half his group is in fact staying in Montreal, and he will be spending 1/3 of his year in Canada. Moreover, he has been in discussion with the US institute for the past 3 years, after his discovery starts getting ready for the costly translation from the bench to the clinic, something that few places outside of the US and UK are able to do. Of course, "losing" a reputable scientist (for 2/3 of the year) to the US is a loss for Canada, but the brain drain, and the reverse brain drain, has been going on for decades, through Liberal and Tory governments. In the past couple of years alone I have personally known three American scientists, perhaps not of Sekaly's calibre but doing good research nonetheless, and all in the basic sciences, who landed positions in Canada and moved up north. I cannot predict if there will now be a sudden "exodus" of Canadian talents to the "Promised Land" down south, but this story has certainly been overblown to make fodder for Liberal zealots.
Personally I question the merits of the Tories' (and the tricouncil's) shift of funding focus from principle investigator grants to infrastructure and student scholarships/fellowships, but to claim that they are destroying Canadian science is absurd. And to believe that Ignatieff is a messiah who will miraculously "save" Canadian science (and everything else in Canada) reeks of insanity.
