Keep up with important (though often frustrating) developments!

Don’t Leave Canada Behind (RSS feed)

SciencePolicy.ca (or on Facebook)

CanadaResearchFunding.org (RSS feed)

Here is at least a partial roundup of posts regarding the must-read paper by Gordon and Poulin (2009). If you have not read it yet, you can obtain a copy by emailing the author: gordonr(at)cc.umanitoba.ca.

• Eliminate peer-review of baseline grants entirely? (A Blog Around the Clock)
• Why eliminate the peer-review of baseline grants? (A Blog Around the Clock)
• Cheaper to Skip Peer Review of Grants? (CanadaResearchFunding.org)
• Applying to NSERC? Everyone gets a grant! (Sandwalk)
• Bad argument against baseline funding (Genomicron)
• Economics of peer review at NSERC – a pernicious discussion (H&C)

Also, if you are not already reading it, have a look at Don’t Leave Canada Behind or sign up for their RSS feed.

Here is the kind of thing we need more of in Canada. We do have things like Canada Research Chairs, Steacie Fellowships, and so on (though mostly these just free one from teaching), but most of the time it is a fight for very small grants that strongly focus efforts on safe, hypothesis-driven, incremental discoveries.

One from private sources:

HHMI Gives 50 Early Career Scientists a Jump on Their Next Big Idea

Fifty of the nation’s best early career science faculty will have more time and resources to focus on their boldest—and potentially transformative—research ideas with support from a new initiative from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

(See Nature)

And another one:

25 New MacArthur Fellows Announced

MacArthur Fellowships offer the opportunity for Fellows to accelerate their current activities or take their work in new directions. The unusual level of independence afforded to Fellows underscores the spirit of freedom intrinsic to creative endeavors. The extraordinary creativity of MacArthur Fellows knows neither boundaries nor the constraints of age, place, and endeavor.

One from public sources:

NIH Director’s Pioneer Award

The NIH Director’s Pioneer Award Program is a unique aspect of the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, a high-risk research initiative of Research Teams of the Future. Pioneer Awards are designed to support individual scientists of exceptional creativity who propose pioneering – and possibly transforming approaches – to major challenges in biomedical and behavioral research. The term “pioneering” is used to describe highly innovative approaches that have the potential to produce an unusually high impact on a broad area of biomedical or behavioral research, and the term “award” is used to mean a grant for conducting research, rather than a reward for past achievements. To be considered pioneering, the proposed research must reflect ideas substantially different from those already being pursued in the investigator’s laboratory or elsewhere. Biomedical and behavioral research is defined broadly in this announcement as encompassing scientific investigations in the biological, behavioral, clinical, social, physical, chemical, computational, engineering, and mathematical sciences.

(See Science)

And another:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) Frequently Asked Questions

2. Are there special priorities for awards that will be made via the Recovery Act?

Funding of new Principal Investigators and high-risk, high-return research will be top priorities. With the exception of the Academic Research Infrastructure Program, the Science Masters Program, and the Major Research Instrumentation Program, the majority of proposals eligible for Recovery Act funding include those that are already in-house and will be reviewed and/or awarded prior to September 30, 2009. NSF also will consider proposals declined on or after October 1, 2008. The process for reversal of the decline decision is outlined in this FAQ document.

Yes, these support only a small number of individuals, but they also give hope that the nation’s agencies and foundations care about funding risky yet possibly transformative research.

Over at Sandwalk, the following comment was posted by Rosie Redfield in response to the idea of 100% baseline funding for qualified researchers.

I think that’s a terrible idea. Everyone gripes about preparing grant proposals, but that’s the one time we’re forced to think rigorously about our research BEFORE we do it. If I didn’t have to justify what I want to do in order to get the funding, I’d waste a lot of the taxpayers’ money doing what I would only later realize to be useless experiments.

I don’t know Dr. Redfield, but I have generally agreed with her comments on Larry’s posts. This is not one of those times, however. Where to start?

First, if this is true, it is an astonishing admission. Your research is still going to be evaluated during peer review before publication, your productivity will be evaluated by your institution, and, presumably, you do not want to waste your time and funds. Who doesn’t think about an experiment beforehand?

Second, most research is done by graduate students. In my department, graduate students take a mandatory course in scientific communication, a component of which is writing, presenting, and justifying their proposed research. This proposal is further edited by their advisor, and then presented to and defended in front of their advisory committee. A standard NSERC proposal must explain the work for 5 years in 5 pages. Each student’s proposal, which is evaluated by peers as well as several faculty, may be 30 pages or more of literature review, justification, study design, and research timelines. That is, the research will still be subject to considerable evaluation.

Third, money is already being wasted.

Fourth, the current system is totally focussed on small hypothesis testing. As the authors of the paper in question pointed out, a stable baseline would allow higher risk projects to get going.

Finally, the authors suggest a mixed approach, with this being only the baseline. Increases could be based on performance, and if you need more money, you have to apply and justify why.

Depressing or infuriating, you decide.

Gordon, R. and Poulin, B.J. (2009). Cost of the NSERC science grant peer review system exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant. Accountability in Research 16: 13-40.

Using Natural Science and Engineering Research Council Canada (NSERC) statistics, we show that the $40,000 (Canadian) cost of preparation for a grant application and rejection by peer review in 2007 exceeded that of giving every qualified investigator a direct baseline discovery grant of $30,000 (average grant). This means the Canadian Federal Government could institute direct grants for 100% of qualified applicants for the same money. We anticipate that the net result would be more and better research since more research would be conducted at the critical idea or discovery stage. Control of quality is assured through university hiring, promotion and tenure proceedings, journal reviews of submitted work, and the patent process, whose collective scrutiny far exceeds that of grant peer review. The greater efficiency in use of grant funds and increased innovation with baseline funding would provide a means of achieving the goals of the recent Canadian Value for Money and Accountability Review. We suggest that developing countries could leapfrog ahead by adopting from the start science grant systems that encourage innovation.

Hat tip: Sandwalk, Blog Around the Clock

Pardon my lack of surprise.

Genome Canada pulling out of stem-cell project

The Don’t Leave Canada Behind site provides this response to their open letter from the Leader of the Opposition (the Liberal Party).

Dear Sir/Madam:

Thank you for your letter regarding the federal funding of research in Canada.

The Liberal Party of Canada has always recognized the importance of supporting research in science and technology. Former Liberal governments have created powerful tools to reinvigorate public research: the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Research Chairs Program, Genome Canada and the Indirect Costs Program for Canada’s colleges and universities.

In contrast, the Conservative governments’ recent budget demonstrates its failure to grasp the importance of scientific research for creating the jobs of tomorrow. Three national research granting councils, which play essential roles in funding the scientists who conduct the research, will be subjected to “efficiency and focusing” cuts over the next three years. Equally disturbing, the budget failed to provide Genome Canada with new funding, obstructing the multi-year process of engaging talented Canadian scientists and private-sector partners in the next research cycle.

Be assured that the Liberal Party will work relentlessly to push this government into making long-term commitments to science, research and innovation. We will raise this issue in the House of Commons, pressuring the government to send a clear message that our country is in this for the long haul.

By allowing our scientists to make long term plans government sends the signal that it really does believe in what they are doing, and, more importantly, that it understand the nature of their work. Long term, predictable support provides our scientists with the tools they need to do their work. It also communicates that we want our scientists to stay in Canada, and, moreover, that we want scientists from the rest of the world to come here to work.

This support must extend to all forms of research – engineering and natural sciences, medicine and life sciences, the humanities and social sciences. It is not appropriate for government to impose constraints on which forms of research are more likely to be funded. Such a policy – valuing applied science over fundamental science that has less obvious commercial value – is shortsighted and wrong.

Thank you again for sharing your views on this important matter.
Sincerely,

The Office of the Leader of the Opposition

I mentioned the message I received about the Don’t Leave Canada Behind campaign in an earlier post. They now have more than 1,800 signatures from Canadian researchers, and a blog (Don’t Leave Canada Behind). If you are a faculty member or other professional scientist in Canada, this is your chance to become involved.

Here is a good letter to the Toronto Star today by Mike Evans–

Shouldn’t science minister know science?