About two and a half years ago, I said universities and scientists were headed for a catastrophic break because university Presidents were more inclined to gratefully accept whatever new dollars came their way rather than fight for research priorities.  That break may actually happen next week, for evil things are reaching my ears about Tuesday’s federal budget.

To be clear: I know nothing for sure about what’s in Tuesday’s budget.  The Liberals are deliberately choosing not to leak anything that suggests they’re about to implement Naylor.  The only stories that have been leaked are ones that say they will make big investments in “Science”, but which studiously avoid saying anything about Naylor.  I am getting enough reports from different quarters suggesting that those in the know – that is, university Presidents, through their representative bodies the U15 and Universities Canada – are quite aware that this budget is going to be problematic and are hoping their scientists aren’t too vocal in their displeasure on budget night.

Again, I’ve got nothing specific to go on here other than bad feelings and rumours, but let me sketch out some elements of a worst-case scenario:

• The feds hate giving money to the granting councils because they get neither credit nor control (but a lot of blame whenever someone writes an article about a SSHRC-funded project with a goofy-sounding title);
• However, the Naylor report put them in a bind with a very large specific ask for the granting councils.  A way out: give a bunch of money to granting councils, but tie it to a bunch of programs which are at right angles to what Naylor recommended in terms of making more funds inquiry-driven;
• Some examples of potential things they might fund: big pots of money to support individual researchers (think CRCs, or CERCs) who are young, female, and/or Indigenous/visible minorities.  Or maybe a special pot of new money just for junior researchers.  Or new money for fundamental research, but most of it tied to specific research programs related to government priorities (guess: it’s going to be a good few years for anyone whose research program involves “reconciliation”, or more generally “equity, diversity and inclusion”);
• One could also imagine a ton of money for boutique science programs, the result of special pleading by any number of universities and agencies.  In this sense, the Budget might look like the Harper govt redux (a big list of all the boutique Harper stuff is here);
• If the government was being super-Machiavellian, the funding increase would be $1.3 billion over four years, mostly back-ended, rather than an increase in the base of $1.3 billion over four years.  This would appear transparently underhanded by Wednesday, but it would be confusing enough to muddy the media coverage on budget night.

To be clear I don’t actually think it’s going to be quite as bad as what I lay out above.  I’m almost certain there will be some actual new unfettered money, though it might not reach 50% of the total new money invested.  But I am near-certain it’s going to be some ways short of what most researchers want, both in terms of total dollars and in terms where they want the money to go (i.e. unrestricted fundamental research).

Now here’s the thing.  No matter how much money goes into this budget and whatever the strings attached to the new piles of money, the U15 and Universities Canada are going to say “thank you, this is fabulous”.  It’s not just that this reaction is pretty much in these organizations’ DNA; cabinet ministers usually spend the 2 weeks before budget intimidating stakeholders, telling them they *expect* endorsements on budget day no matter what and if these are not forthcoming then woe betide them.  This does not end when the budget comes out – sometimes, if praise is not effusive enough at 5PM on budget day, various ministerial flacks/goons will be assigned to read the riot act to specific stakeholders and demand extra public praise.  It’s just how Ottawa works.  So even if this budget is *terrible*, university Presidents are already pre-committed to praising it.  The only question is how high the praise will be.

And this is where I think Team #supportthereport needs to make some decisions very quickly.  What red lines would the government have to cross before scientists tell the government (and, implicitly, university managements) to go jump in the lake?  What’s the minimum acceptable standard here in terms of overall investment or in terms of the proportion of that investment going to boutique programs?  There isn’t going to be time to decide this on Tuesday.  At 4 PM, when the budget lock-up ends, Universities Canada and U15 are going to say whatever they think they need to say.  If they endorse the report uncritically before scientists have even had a chance to read it, then it’s game over, politically.  The government will have broken the impetus for more funding without having delivered what the community actually wants or needs.

The one chance I think scientists have right now is to lay down to university Presidents –between now and Monday afternoon –those red lines.  It’s obviously too late to influence the Government, but it’s not too late to influence how effusive universities are in their praise of this document.  If Team #supportthereport is loud, clear, and united over the next five days in articulating an acceptable outcome, it might still change the politics of this thing by making university leadership more cautious in its praise of what seems increasingly likely to be a flawed Science budget.

I could of course be wrong about all of this.  The Government may surprise and do the right thing after all, in which case we can forget all of the above and sing praises together.  The big tell on Tuesday will be whether or not David Naylor is in Ottawa.  If he’s there, it means he’s giving his blessing to the Government’s plan.  If, on the other hand, you see him on the street in Toronto, it’s a reasonable bet Tuesday afternoon is going to be an unpleasant one for the country’s scientists.