I figured that if I was going to post NSERC’s position, I should also provide CIHR’s. This was actually posted ages ago – a much more timely response from CIHR and Dr. Beaudet.

NSERC just posted a direct commentary on the strategic review, budget 2009 and NSERC program changes on their website. Nothing really new here – but you get to hear it directly from Dr. Fortier.

I’m coming to this topic a little bit later than everyone else since I’ve been trying very hard to limit my posts about research politics, but I can’t hold it in any longer. When Budget 2009 came out, I wondered where the tri-councils were going to make the cuts to their budgets. Anecdotally, the originally perceived $87 million in cuts is now more likely to be around $147 million over the next three years. This is in contrast to the $10 billion (US) increase for research in the United States. Yuck.

Anyway, the Presidents of the various tri-councils apparently sent out letters to stakeholders on February 19th and McLeans.ca posted the content of those letters on February 23rd in a blog post titled “Let’s play Cut the Granting Councils!” These letters outlined where the cuts will occur. Here is CAUT’s summary. And here’s mine:

SSHRC’s cuts:

• eliminating health-related research that is eligible for funding under CIHR
• no more Research Time Stipends (RTS)
• (Not stated directly in the letter) elimination of the Intellectual Property Mobilization (IPM) program, however since they were only contributing $150,000 per year to the program, this might have not been substantial enough to note.

CIHR’s cuts:

• Open Team grants program discontinued
• IPM program cut

NSERC’s cuts:

• Centres for Research in Youth, Science Teaching and Learning (CRYSTAL) program will be phased out; funding for the five current centres will not be renewed once commitments are complete
• Post Graduate Scholarships (PGS) will limit Masters students to one year (and as an aside, NSERC announced yesterday that it was discontinuing the MITACS/PGS program)
• University Faculty Awards (UFA) program eliminated (not exactly breaking news as this program was closed 2 or 3 years ago)
• Research Capacity Development (RCD) program will not continue, the seven pilot awards will not be renewed
• Major Resources Support (MRS) program will provide support to major resources that are unique on a national or international scale (and the difference is???)
• Special Research Opportunity (SRO) program will be discontinued. (This is disappointing as this program had the most potential for increasing timely and innovative research (outside of fixed funding cycles) in the absence of an industrial partner.)
• IPM program cut

In my opinion, NSERC and CIHR are taking the brunt of the cuts. NSERC does state that the Discovery grant program budget will increase slightly (from $323 million in 2008-09, to $326 million in 2009-10); but the whole concept of increasing the number of scholarships, while limiting the term of the MSc awards just makes me think of robbing Peter to pay Paul. If researchers are supposed to demonstrate that they are supporting highly qualified personnel (HQP), but can’t ensure that they have the base funding for students (through their grants), will an assumption of attracting PGS students be an acceptable alternative? How much pressure will there be for MSc students to convert to PhD programs to ensure scholarship funding?

However, one upside of cutting so many different programs at NSERC is that perhaps there will be some trimming on the administrative side to result in those “operating efficiencies” they mentioned earlier? I say this with my tongue firmly in cheek, as I know how overloaded most of these administrators are, but I also recognize that this is not the perception at large.

Somehow, I also feel like many of these cuts are in contrast with the objectives stated in the federal S&T strategy “Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage (2007)”. Yes, there is more of a push towards trainees, but still, if there is no operating funding for this influx of personnel to use for research – what is the point?

Carolyn Abraham’s feature in Monday’s Globe and Mail “Researchers fear ‘stagnation’ under Tories” made me feel slightly ill. If our leadership is comprised of individuals who have temper tantrums when faced with an opposing perspective, I am fearful for the future of Canada.

(Yes, I know politicians often display infantile behaviour as a matter of course, but still – grow up people – we’re all in this together. Where were his handlers anyway?)

The article talks about a standoff between Gary Goodyear, Minister of Science and Technology and officials from the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), along with the opinions of several prominent Canadian researchers on the state of Canadian research funding.

A fellow grant writer and editor, Ron Annan, summarizes the article succinctly in his blog. Definitely worth a read.

See the Globe and Mail article “Budget erases funding for key science agency” January 29, 2009

This can’t be real. Will this government really let Canada look like a fool in international research circles by eliminating Genome Canada? A huge leap backward and loss of an international leadership position for Canada in genomics. A sad day indeed.