PDF

July09-offprint-editorial-eng.pdf

NSERC’s much loved Discovery Grant Program (DGP) is the envy of the world.  Typically five years in duration, the grants provide stability and a base funding to research and the support of graduate students and other HQP training. It helps researchers plan long term without forcing them to adhere to the details of their proposal. Researchers have the freedom to modify their program at will, based on recent developments in their field and in their work, encouraging creativity and initiative, and optimizing efficiency.

The program has however been under pressure because of its high success rate (70% in 2007) which did not seem compatible with excellence. To respond to this concern and assess the DGP, NSERC initiated an international review.  At the same time, NSERC also initiated a GSC Structure Review.  One of the reasons was an increasing concern that the Grant Selection Committee (GSC) structure was not ideal as science was becoming increasingly cross-disciplinary [1].  The findings of both of those reviews were posted on NSERC’s web site in May 2008 and their recommendations were partially implemented in the 2009 competition, and will be more fully implemented in the upcoming 2010 DGP competition.  The success rates across all disciplines dropped in 2009 to 63.8%.  It may not be an exaggeration to state that these are historic times for the DGP and a good time to pause and assess what is happening. 

The report of the International Review Committee (IRC) [2] strongly supports the DGP.  Its executive summary is emphatic.  Canadian Science is of high quality. In most Natural Sciences and Engineering (NSE) fields, Canada is 1st among G7 countries in publications per capita and 7th worldwide in absolute numbers. Furthermore the average impact factor (defined as the global rate of citations to literature in a given field) was 9th worldwide in 2005, 4th among G7 countries, and overall of even quality across the seven major NSE subfields.  A noteworthy finding was that there is relatively little variation in average publication quality as a function of grant size.  Their data demonstrate that even a small DG can support high quality research across the broad base of grantees, larger grants resulting mainly in a higher rate of production.  The IRC believes that the DG program provides the right balance between “promoting and maintaining a diversified base of high quality research capability in Canadian universities”, and “fostering research excellence”.  It noted in particular that the perception that the DGP is flawed because of its high success rate is an “inaccurate reading of the actual situation”. A researcher can only hold or apply to one DG at any time. Ultimately a much lower percentage of the requested funds is awarded than the amount suggested by the success rate, 38% in 2007. The DGP provides base support that in many countries comes from a variety of sources (university budgets for instance).  In its assessment of the situation the IRC concluded that the DGP is “an exceptionally effective model”.  The high success rate creates an attractive environment in the global competition for talent. 

The report made a number of recommendations. In parallel the GSC Structure Review Committee made its recommendations which in most ways would answer the IRC suggestions. These were submitted at the about the same time and led to significant changes in the DG selection process. Those were partially implemented in the 2009 competition and will be more fully implemented in 2010 competition. I will outline briefly two aspects of the new procedures which could be a topic in itself.

The IRC’s main concern was that GSC’s relied too much on the previous grant of the applicants to determine awards creating a lot of inertia in the system. This issue is resolved by assessing proposals using a bin system for the three funding criteria: Excellence of the researcher, merit of the proposal, and contribution to the training of Highly Qualified Personnel (HQP). There are six bins for each category: exceptional, outstanding, very strong, strong, moderate, and insufficient. In addition the cost of research was classified as high, normal, or low. The scores are compiled and lead to a dollar value without the GSC making a monetary recommendation. This procedure was implemented in the 2009 competition. In 2010 the 28 GSCs will be replaced by roughly 10 panels constituted largely along disciplinary lines. They will group sections with more specific expertise. Grants will be evaluated by members from various sections in a conference model to reflect the expertise required to evaluate a specific research program. Most will agree that the changes were timely, although there is no unanimity on the proposed implementation. My focus is not on the procedures which need to be looked at carefully but on the general direction the DGP is taking. 

There is obviously some nervousness about a process that has become less predictable especially since the researcher bears or enjoys the outcome for a full five years. One possible modification may be that researchers who have been funded but are really disappointed by their award should be allowed under certain conditions to reapply before the end of the term of their grants. A more serious concern is that, realistically a proper implementation of all the recommendations which I have not detailed requires more funding. If no additional funding is received the pressure to further reduce the success rate would be present. There are a number of reasons to be concerned about a declining success rate, especially if this decline is driven by an ideology of increased selectivity.

First, increased selectivity affects the kind of research that will be carried out in Canadian universities. It will limit funding to a certain style of research, large groups with many students with prolific publication records. The reality is that not all important areas of science are amenable to this style of research. Why shut out smaller groups with excellent minds, especially when the IRC has demonstrated their cost effectiveness? Some challenging theoretical and experimental topics limit the size of the group to what the researcher can properly supervise. In some of those areas training should be selective.

Concentration may thwart creativity. Great ideas can emerge from the most unexpected sources. Scientists mature in unpredictable ways. Pockets of excellence are more decentralized than expected. A critical mass is required for research at the frontiers in technologically challenging areas, but to get a fraction more of the funding one should not destabilize the national talent pool. Improvements can be made to generate more innovation, but these are complex issues that should not be financed at the expense of preserving a broad and diverse base. A national strategy should encourage diversity not limit it [4]. The argument to limit funding to a select few makes even less sense when it comes to innovation than to fundamental research. 

Secondly, the DGP is the backbone of our graduate programs. It takes more than a few well-funded individuals to produce a successful graduate program. A critical number of dedicated researchers acting as teachers, supervisors, and reviewers have to be involved. It would be regrettable if by making DGs highly selective rather than a reasonable expectation of researchers, the base from which our HQP emerge is damaged.  A proper balance has to be found between ensuring that the best receive adequate funding and maintaining a broad base of activities across fields and regions. The IRC believes that there is no crisis, that Canadian research is excellent across fields, and that small grants are a good investment. The IRC warned that: “Any significant intentional reduction in the DGP success rate – in order to further concentrate funds on fewer researchers – would inevitably have a disproportionate impact on those currently receiving smaller grants. This would result in reduced research support in the smaller provinces and in small institutions.” It is the whole landscape of HQP training that will be affected actually. Many of our most successful scientists come from those small institutions where they received their first exposure to research (our latest NSERC Herzberg medalist Paul Corkum was trained at Acadia)?[5].  Improvements are possible and are being made. It seems that to fulfill the recommendations of both reviews, more funding is required. This additional funding should not be taken away from talented researchers who by the nature of their science, or their teaching load, are not as prolific, or whose impact is not as high as wished. 

The sudden drop in success rate reported for the 2009 competition, from 70% in 2007 to 63.9% may be a readjustment resulting from a new selection process, but we should all be vigilant and monitor carefully what is happening in the support for academic research. We should not let a desire to concentrate funds further, undermine a system that is already recognized as excellent and a model to others. It will damage irreversibly our HQP training and our research diversity.

B. Joós, P.Phys.
Editor, Physics in Canada

References:
1.  see, for instance,  B. Joós, “The CAP Congress and the Evolution of Physics in Canada”, Editorial, PiC, Vol. 63(3) 2007.
2.  Report of the International Review Committee on the Discovery Grants Program, fully available on NSERC’s website: http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Reports-Rapports/Consultations/international_review_e.pdf
3.  Recommendations  of the Grant Selection Committee Structure Review Advisory Committee, fully available on NSERC’s website: http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Reports-Rapports/Consultations/GSC_final_report_e.pdf
4.  Allan Rock, “Research dollars should follow great ideas”, The Ottawa Citizen, Thursday, September 3rd, 2009.
5.  See interview with Paul Corkum on page 118 of this issue.

Comments of readers on this editorial are more than welcome.