INST Committee Report

CONCLUSION

After hearing from a number of witnesses representing various interests in the research community, the Committee believes that the mechanisms used to allocate research funds by the three federal granting agencies are, for the most part, efficient. Evidence the Committee heard, and data it collected on the nationwide distribution of granting agency funds, indicated that there are regional differences in the success rates of researchers in obtaining research funds and in the average size of grants received. Such differences were also noted in relation to the size of institutions, with researchers from larger institutions generally having a higher success rate in obtaining federal research funds and receiving larger grants, on average, than researchers from small institutions. The Committee believes that regional differences in success rates and funding levels likely reflect the relatively large number of small universities and low levels of value-added industrial activity and/or provincial investment in R&D in certain regions of the country. Researchers at small universities face barriers such as high teaching loads and small graduate programs that reduce their capacity to conduct research relative to their large university counterparts.

Based on the evidence heard, the Committee is of the opinion that the best way to address some of the regional differences in success rates and grant levels in granting agency competitions is to first address differences in research capacity at institutions across the country, not to change the decision-making processes for the allocation of funds at the granting agencies. The Committee’s recommendations for the government to establish a permanent program for the support of the indirect costs of federally supported research, and to provide programs targeted to building research capacity at small or regional universities aim to “level the playing field” for researchers competing in open competitions at the granting agencies. Furthermore, the Committee encourages the granting agencies to review their funding mechanisms to ensure that researchers from these institutions participate actively in decision-making processes, and that, as far as possible, the peer-review process takes into account the difficulties faced by researchers at these institutions. The Committee also believes that low overall funding levels to the federal granting agencies have contributed to the generally low success rates and/or grant sizes for researchers from small and regional institutions. The Committee recommends that the government act quickly on the Innovation Strategy’s commitment to increase funding levels to the granting agencies, especially to SSHRC.

Although the Committee is convinced that the excellence of the investigator(s) and the proposed research should remain the primary criterion in peer review for selecting research proposals for funding, it believes that other selection criteria, such as the relevance of the research to target areas of national importance, are also very important in many cases. The agencies should carefully examine whether research in areas of national importance is receiving the attention it deserves. The Committee recommends that the agencies work together better to ensure that strategic, emerging and interdisciplinary research that crosses the boundaries of granting agency mandates is properly supported. Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the agencies establish a formal mechanism to facilitate collaboration on all levels so that the research community can have seamless access to federal research funds in Canada. The Committee also recommends that the federal government examine the ways it sets S&T policy and decides on funding priorities. It believes that a stronger, more co-ordinated S&T governance framework, that could include a Chief Scientific Adviser and/or a science advisory body that reports to Parliament, would ensure that research in target areas of national importance, as well as other types of research, receives appropriate levels of funding.

The Committee is of the opinion that other players in Canada’s innovation framework may not be receiving the attention that they deserve from the federal granting agencies. Although all three agencies have core programs to support the training of highly qualified personnel, low overall funding levels to the agencies translate into relatively low success rates and stipend levels for most training programs. The Committee recommends that the government increase funding levels to the granting agencies so that they can correct these deficiencies. Another group of researchers that the Committee feels is undervalued by the granting agencies is college researchers. This group is beginning to contribute more and more to the development and technology transfer end of the innovation continuum. In recognition of this contribution, the Committee recommends that the government establish separate funding programs, through the granting agencies and/or other government bodies, to support the work of college researchers. The Committee believes that the granting agencies should continue to encourage college researchers to participate in their programs, but it feels that this group of researchers also requires separate funding programs whose excellence-based selection criteria reflect the special situation faced by researchers in the college environment.

The Committee supports the practice of peer review as a mechanism for determining the allocation of federal research funds, but it believes that a number of improvements can be made to the system. The Committee’s recommendations include making improvements to feedback or appeal mechanisms for applicants, and requiring the agencies to engage in more regular reviews and refinements of their peer-review processes and practices in general. Finally, the Committee believes that although it is important to examine the mechanisms employed by the agencies for the allocation of federal research funds, more effort should be placed into examining the outcomes and impacts of federally funded research. The Committee makes a recommendation to the government that it ensure that the granting agencies take steps to better measure these outcomes. This information would help the agencies decide on research areas that should receive special consideration for funding, and would present the government and public with a clear idea of the “value for money” of these granting programs.