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.

Since my previous post, I have been thinking a lot about perspective and perception. An article by Steven Wiley, “The Problem of Perception”* in the recent issue of The Scientist* made me want to explore this further. Call it thinking out loud, because I don’t claim to be an expert.

Wiley describes his experience of how scientific controversies arise from differences in how researchers interpret data. He states:

“In science, we do not gather facts. We make observations. Our interpretation of observations is only as good as our assumptions and conceptual frameworks.”

I would take this further and state that this isn’t true only in science. It is a human trait to apply our personal paradigm and the information available to interpret the situation at hand. But, what if we don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle? Obviously, our analysis and actions end up being flawed.

One of my mentors had a mantra: “Take the information available, make the best decision you can, and fix it later. It is more important to be agile than accurate in business.” He didn’t mean that we should always make mistakes, but he understood that in order to act quickly, we would occasionally have to make decisions based on a partial view of the situation. This would necessarily lead to the occasional error in judgment; however, since we moved rapidly, the negative effect of an error would be mitigated by our response to correct it.

Therein lies the crux of the challenge – recognizing the error in observation and interpretation.

Most people are entrenched in their opinion and are unable to recognize or appreciate a differing position. It is all about perspective. Whether it is boss vs. employee or graduate student vs. professor, each individual has a different perspective of the situation and generates an opinion of the other without knowing all of the information. Even if they knew everything, which in many human resource situations they do not, how they interpret the information they have colours their reality and impacts how they perceive the outcome.

I have experienced this first hand. Once upon a time I worked for an early stage company that was going through its death throes. I was in a unique position where the staff perceived me as ‘one of them’ and I also worked with the management team as an observer. I got to see the quintessential childhood game of telephone (AKA Chinese whispers) – how a message gets distorted through gossip and misinterpretation. In this situation, the staff did not have all of the information available to the management team and made assumptions about the state of the company and the security of their jobs based on their perception of events. After the company was defunct, I talked to many people outside the company and learned a great deal about external factors and how others perceived the sequence of events. This opened my eyes to seeing a scenario from many different perspectives.

In science, as with everything, there are several sides to an argument – your side, my side, and the truth (which might include your perspective, my perspective, a combination of the two, or something entirely new).

Be willing to consider the alternatives and you might learn something new.

*Current articles from The Scientist are available with a free registration