The plan includes a foreword by CIHR President Dr. Alain Beaudet which, disappointingly, ventures into the political sphere by equating the Canadian government’s support for science with the American’s:

CIHR is unveiling its second strategic plan during a period of unprecedented uncertainty. It has, therefore, been particularly rewarding to see the widespread conviction on both sides of the 49th parallel that investment in research is a vital part of stimulating our economy and our society back to a state of prosperity and of our future growth and competitiveness.

Perhaps they mean the conviction by researchers who are protesting cuts to CIHR’s funding allocation… Nonetheless:

[this] Strategic Plan… is the product of widespread consultations with members of the health research community, careful assessment of CIHR’s strengths and weaknesses, ongoing deliberation about where CIHR would like to be in five years and a sober assessment of the resources available to get us there.

Hmm, “sober assessment of the resources available” – sounds more like it.

The Plan itself is the product of extensive consultation with the member Institutes that constitute the CIHR, with CIHR’s advisory board, and with researchers across the country. It is divided into four strategic directions:

1. investing in world-class excellence;
2. addressing health and health system research priorities;
3. accelerating the capture of health and economic benefits of health research;
4. achieving organizational excellence, fostering ethics and demonstrating impact.

These strategic directions are aligned with the Government’s Science and Technology Strategy, and the plan background references many of the same background data as the recent STIC report. Namely, Canada does well in basic research but needs to do better at translating that research into innovation.

The body of the plan speaks in detail about each of the four strategic directions. The first, investing in excellence, proposes nothing surprising – training and retaining world-class researchers, better peer-review panels, more international collaboration and collaboration with agencies like NSERC and SSHRC, among others. CIHR emphasizes the importance of collaboration:

“Health research is no longer an individual activity; it has become a team activity. CIHR has long recognized this and has developed specific programs to promote and encourage national collaboration.

This statement seems rather ironic given the cancellation of the popular CIHR Open Team grant program. The irony continues:

insufficient efforts have been made towards encouraging Canadian health scientists to take part in, or lead, large international research consortia (with the notable exceptions of the Cancer Stem Cell and Structural Genomics Consortia).

Maybe there are reasons Canadians don’t lead large, international consortia…

The second strategic direction echoes the government’s policy on focusing research into selected priority areas. Echoing the STIC report, the CIHR plan states: “As a relatively small country on the global stage, Canada must select where it makes its mark“.  The CIHR plan will focus on priorities identified by the government’s Science and Technology Strategy and a previous STIC report in 2007. CIHR describes how it will address the relevant priorities (in bold):

Regenerative medicine
Support implementation of the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium; develop
nanotechnology applications for health
Neuroscience
Lead integrated addictions strategy, develop new programs for brain disorders
and injuries
Health in an aging population
Support longitudinal aging cohort studies, mobility in aging and cognitive
impairment studies
Biomedical engineering and medical technologies
Support research at the interface between the biological and the physical
and applied sciences
Water
Develop new and improved detection tools, improve water surveillance,
investigate links between pathogens and chronic disease
Climate change adaptation
Set priorities concerning the human dimensions of environmental and Arctic
research. Develop a tri-council global health initiative addressing adaptation
to environment and climate change
Electronic health records
Develop frameworks to allow for stakeholder input into the development of
effective health information systems and the secondary use of data by
decision makers and researchers.

CIHR addresses funding for the stem cell consortium explicitly here – I wonder if this is a CIHR decision, or whether the federal government is backtracking from the bad press it received for canning the Genome Canada funding for the project. The government also addresses the need to increase research into challenges facing the health care system.

The third strategic direction is devoted to increasing the knowledge translation from research to “health and economic benefits”. Here, CIHR seems to suggest it will be moving away from funding basic science and will increasingly expect applied science to play a prominent role in the process:

In the coming years, CIHR will increasingly focus on ’solutions-based research’ that involves collaboration between researchers and users in the research process. This begins with shaping research questions that will generate solutions to pressing problems.

I’m not sure who the “users” are for research into causes and mechanisms of Alzheimer’s, for instance – does this mean such projects are less likely to be funded? It seems that requiring end users as collaborators will inevitably shift CIHR funding from basic research to applied science.

The fourth strategic direction addresses internal CIHR organization: plans to make the organization more transparent and accountable, etc.

Scientists can then access a web form to provide feedback (here). The web feedback is mostly “do you agree or disagree with this section of our plan”, though there are a few spots to leave feedback. This is an opportunity for researchers to directly get involved, so I encourage you to scan the report (you can use my handy executive summary here as a reference) and provide your feedback.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The report is guardedly positive about the role of academic research in Canada. It acknowledges that Canada is 2nd in the OECD in the share of R&D performed by universities and recognizes that Canadian researchers are among the most prolific in the world in publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals. Despite the lament that there is a poor translation of basic research into innovation, Canada ranks fourth in the OECD in university-performed R&D funded by business (at more than twice the G7 average), and Canadian universities produce spinoff private companies at one of the highest rates in the world.

So what’s the problem? Why all the talk about the problems with the “system”? Despite the academic research community’s health, it hasn’t been matched by growth and activity in private, “Business” R&D. When Business, University, and Government R&D are all considered, Canada’s expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP is below the G7 and OECD averages, and is roughly half that of the top countries Sweden, Finland, Japan, and Korea. Furthermore, investment in Business R&D has been basically flat in Canada since 2001.

Finally getting to the nub of the problem with the science-technology-innovation system, the report points out that only 55% of Canada’s total R&D is performed by the business sector, compared to 77 percent in Japan; 70 percent in the U.S. and Germany; 63 percent in France; and 62 percent in the U.K. The report states [italics from the original]:

Since the R&D performed by business is more likely to be closer to the market (i.e more development than research) this may have an impact on Canada’s ability to turn research into new products, services, processes and business models that are sold globally. Compared to our major competitors, more of our R&D is performed by universities and colleges. Most of this is more basic research, farther away from being turned into profitable market opportunities and results.

So presumably, the government should be providing more money to Business to encourage it to innovate. Unfortunately,

for the 13 OECD countries for which data are available, Canada has the richest government support of business R&D, as a percentage of GDP.

Thus, if redirecting funding from University research to Business isn’t the answer, what is?. The report shows that the Canadian Business R&D sector does poorly in attracting and rewarding venture capital and is near the bottom of the OECD in collaborating with private, university, or government sector partners. While no obvious solution presents itself, the report suggests that the Business R&D sector may be the weak link in the STI “system”.

So what’s the solution? It doesn’t seem to be increased education – our 15-yr old students are 3rd in the world in science, math, and reading and we have the highest percentage of the OECD countries of adults with tertiary education. Worryingly, we are only 21st in the OECD in the percentage of science and engineering degrees awarded to graduates, though this is still higher than the US, and 20th in the OECD in the number of PhDs awarded per capita. Interestingly, the report also includes data to show that Canada produces only half as many business graduates as the US, and that managers at Canadian firms tend to have less education than their American counterparts. Perhaps this is why the government recently made changes to SSHRC funding to tie it to business studies.

Overall, the report provides a comprehensive and interesting examination of the state of R&D in Canada. I would suggest that the Science, Technology, and Innovation parts of the “system” correspond roughly to Basic Research, Engineering, and Business. The report suggests that the first part of the system is working well and strongly, but that engineering and innovation by the business sector need to be improved. Unfortunately, government investment in that area doesn’t seem to be the answer. The report’s authors suggest that strengthening links between the sectors will help, though government funding of basic research is already often tied to matching private funds and doesn’t seem to be generating the desired effects.

It isn’t clear how to improve this “system”. I suggest this, though: instead of targeting basic research to make it more technological and innovative, focus should be placed on improving the underperforming sectors. Basic research should remain a powerful engine for when the rest of the system gets tuned up. Increased and prioritized focus on innovative engineering programs and incentives matched with better business practices and training are the more appropriate places to tinker with the system. Basic researchers can’t do it all – they need to be supported by strong engineering and business components, and that’s where the government’s priorities should be focused.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Late last week, Nova Scotia had their share of the KIP announced by Defence Minister Peter MacKay, “on behalf of the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry”, according to the press release (why it was on behalf of Minister Clement and not Minister Goodyear is a conundrum to me). Nova Scotia will receive $113.9-million for 25 projects across the province.

While these announcements are supposed to serve to drum up excitement and interest in the Government’s investment in research, the redundancy of the proceedings (notwithstanding the rotating cast of Ministers and associated MPs who show up) is clearly reflected even in the government press releases which accompany the announcements. The three announcements so far (including BC’s $455.1-million) are identical, save for three elements: an opening paragraph which details the province involved and amount received; a quote from an appreciative provincial politician; and a moving example of how the funds will be applied. The rest are identical paragraphs of standard government talking points, including a statement which captures why scientists are underwhelmed about this supposed commitment to “research”:

The [KIP] program is helping to provide economic stimulus and promote employment by creating jobs for engineers, architects, tradespeople and technicians. It is also helping to generate the advanced technological infrastructure needed to keep Canada’s research and educational facilities at the forefront of scientific advancement.

The program will create jobs in construction. Oh, and it will also help generate scientific advancement and whatever…

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question I would like to premise it that the motion itself concerns harmonization of various taxes. It does in fact mention the 1990s, and the hon. members opposite did make examples of some things in the 1990s.

In the 1990s, the Liberals cut science and technology by $442 million, which in today’s dollars is about $1 billion of cuts to science and technology. They also raised taxes on Canadians. The Leader of the Opposition has been cited as saying that they definitely will have to raise taxes on Canadians. I suspect that they will in fact cut and gut science and technology once again.

Understand that this is 30 minutes into a multi-party discussion about the merits of provincial-federal tax reorganization and compensation for Quebec. No doubt it caught everyone off guard. Just in case they missed it, though, the Minister again rushed to defend science funding from Liberal cuts, an hour later:

Mr. Speaker, in his great speech, the member went into the taxation issue. I do know that in the mid-1990s the Liberals cut $442 million from science and technology. I have not done the math for 2009 dollars, but in 2007 dollars that alone was almost $1 billion cut from science and technology. At the same time, they also raised taxes on Canadians.

Now we are hearing this promise by the Liberals to raise taxes on Canadians. I am concerned that they will also gut science and technology. Hopefully, that will never happen because Canadians will not vote for raising taxes. Would the member be kind enough to share with us some of his thoughts on how raising taxes would affect Canadians and, in particular, Canadians in Quebec?

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

- Carol Goar at The Toronto Star describes the “Science Dinner of the Year” hosted by the Royal Canadian Institute for the Advancement of Science. While scientists were effusive in discussing their research, she felt they were reluctant to address “ the federal Conservatives, Prime Minister Stephen Harper or his hapless science minister”. She attributes this to a new uncertainty and unease in the scientific community about the state of research funding. The current situation is summarized, and Goar points out that it isn’t simply an issue of money, but rather that the Conservative government doesn’t seem to value science and research as much as its predecessors. Goar writes:

Harper bewilders scientists. He doesn’t seem to grasp that curiosity-driven research can revolutionize the economy, create forward-looking jobs and advance the frontiers of medicine.

His aides are wary of scientists, who care more about facts than political directives.

His science minister, a chiropractor, points to his university courses in kinesiology and anatomy and his high-school experiments with automotive engines as proof of his fitness for the portfolio…

But when scientists hear British Prime Minister Gordon Brown say “the downturn is no time to slow down our investment science, but to build more vigorously for the future,” and American President Barack Obama say “science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation,” they long for visionary leadership.

Seems to me that, instead of turning frosty when a sympathetic columnist for the largest-circulation newspaper in the country asks about research funding policy, scientists should seize the opportunity to describe exactly why their research and that of their colleagues represents a good investment. Especially so when they’re participating in public events like this dinner.

- DontLeaveCanadaBehind highlights two Canadian researchers and their experiences with the new NSERC funding situation. France at UQAR (Rimouski) describes her frustration at not getting funded by NSERC and worries about her graduate students. Nancy at UofT has her funding request cut in half, and urges fellow scientists not to “hide in your office feeling that you’ve done something wrong”.

Both researchers show remarkable courage in sharing their stories. Too many researchers suffer the personal doubts and despair at not getting funded in isolation. Especially during the current period of unease and change at Canada’s research funding agencies, researchers can benefit from sharing their stories with the community. And Nancy supports the idea of researchers becoming more fully engaged in funding policy:

We won’t know unless we share our stories. And NSERC won’t know unless it hears from us. Don’t hide in your office feeling that you’ve done something wrong. If there is any doubt in your mind about the adequacy of the review process and the outcome for your Discovery Grant, submit an appeal. And share your story.

Nancy also suggests participating in the discussions about science funding at DLCB, which seems like a grand idea.

- The National Post reports that the inconsistency of providing infrastructure funding without operating funds has ensnared a prominent Arctic research station. The Churchill Northern Studies Centre has been awarded $11-million in infrastructure funding, but lost the $80,ooo annual NSERC operating grant, which it used to help pay technical staff and day-to-day operations.  ”It’s a little ironic,” says Michael Goodyear, executive director of the centre. “It didn’t pass peer review”, said a spokeswoman for NSERC.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The Applied Genomics Research in Bioproducts and Crops competition was launched over a year ago (April 1, 2008) and was based on recommendations from position papers produced in July 2007. So while Goodyear and his government can still keep up appearances by showing up at grant decision announcements and stating, “our government recognizes the important role that research excellence plays in furthering innovation and competitiveness,” they’d better make the most of them now, since there will be fewer such opportunities next year.

The press release included a statement from Dr. Calvin Stiller, Chairman of the Board of Genome Canada. Though Genome Canada has been publicly onside with the government, even the quote in the press release hints at his frustration:

In addition to creating and maintaining approximately 250 jobs in Canada, today’s announcement reinforces the important scientific advances that can be achieved through Genome Canada’s funding model.

The press release notes that the competition awarded 12 projects in six provinces a total of $112-million, of which $53-million was provided by the Government of Canada, through Genome Canada. Details of the competition can be viewed here.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Science and Technology) announced new grants for Canada’s top researchers through the Discovery Grants Program (DGP), administered by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC).

These “new grants” they’re announcing are simply the results of this year’s DGP competition. I’m not sure that it’s normal procedure for the Minister to personally announce the results of a regular grant competition, especially the small-scale DGP. Despite the good news story that demonstrates just how much the government supports basic research, there is this cryptic and awkward description at the end of the announcement:

The budget for the Discovery Grants Program is $349.3 million. The amount of funding available per applicant in the 2009 competition was slightly higher than in 2008.

I couldn’t really figure out why they’d measure the funds ‘per applicant’, so I checked out the NSERC website, where I discovered a second news item which, unlike the one above, hadn’t been widely distributed by a leading newswire service. This second release is a nuts and bolts item about the DGP results, and much more in tune with the way these things are normally announced. No special appearance by the Minister, nor trumpeting of the government’s investment in research. In fact, the story’s headline is all about changes made to the peer review process for grant applications. Somewhere in the middle of the announcement were the details about funding for this round of grants:

The total budget for the DGP in 2009 was at the same level as in 2008. Per applicant, the total amount of funding available in the 2009 competition was slightly higher than in 2008. The percentage of applicants receiving a grant declined from 71 per cent in 2008 to 63.5 per cent this year. The overall average grant for successful individuals in the 2009 competition increased by over $4,000 per year compared to the 2008 Competition.

So, the budget was unchanged, and fewer people got grants. If, as was awkwardly stated in the press release, there was more funding available per applicant this year, this is simply because fewer people applied, and is hardly something the government should be congratulating itself about…

As an aside, the news item at the NSERC site describes the peer review system used for evaluating Discovery Grant applications. A short excerpt details part of the financial evaluation (never mind the scientific evaluation…):

Each application was independently rated on a “Relative cost of research” factor, with the options being “normal for the discipline” or higher or lower than the norm. Applicants with similar scores were aggregated into categories or “bins” of comparable overall quality. In the second step, the committees assigned a funding level to each bin, making the adjustments for the “Relative cost of research,” if needed.

Sounds like supporting evidence for abolishing the DGP review process to me. Publishing the details of their arcane review system while debate is rampant about whether the grants should be reviewed at all makes me wonder who’s doing the PR for these guys…

Bookmark It

Hide Sites