I. Identifying the problems• Shifting funding from basic research• Defunding politically inconvenient research• Obscuring the defunding• Stacking granting council governing boards• Changing granting council priorities• Diverting resources to “stars”• Muzzling experts• Directing public science for private profit• Promoting undue corporate influence in university

research

Shifting away from funding basic research

Funding for Canada’s Granting Councils

Granting Council base funding, 2007-2013 (constant 2010 dollars, millions)  

  2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Change 2007-12

SSHRC 383.7 358.1 368.1 359.4 355.6 351.5 344.8 -10.1%

NSERC 1057.9 1051.5 1042.3 1050.2 1030.8 1018.9 990.3 -6.4%

CIHR 1017.8 989.8 1020.1 1026.9 953.0 969.4 941.4 -7.5%

Indirect costs 327.9 335.7 330.9 324.9 322.6 318.9 302.0 -7.9%

Total 2787.2 2735.0 2761.5 2761.4 2662.1 2658.7 2578.4 -7.5%

Source: SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR Departmental Performance Reports, Budget 2012 and Budget 2013

Defunding politically inconvenient research

Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL)

Experimental Lakes Area

Obscuring the defunding

Stacking granting council governing boards

MRC/CIHR Council

Faculty Admin Corporate Other0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1995-96 2001-02 2012-13

NSERC Council

Faculty

Admin

Corporat

eOther

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1996-97 2001-02 2012-2013

SSHRC Council

Faculty

Admin

Students

Corporat

eOther

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1996-97 2001-02 2012-13

Changing granting council priorities

Fettered funding within Granting Councils - NSERC

Source: NSERC Departmental Performance Reports, Budget 2012-13

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14200

300

400

500

389370 369

347327 322

268 270283

340350

360

Discovery Grant versus Fettered Research funding (constant 2010 dollars, in mil-lions)

Basic

Fettered

Less support for open research

Source: NSERC, CIHR, SSHRC Departmental Performance Reports, Federal Budget 2012-13

SSHRC Investiga-

tor-framed

research

NSERC Discov-

ery Grant

CIHR Open

Operating Grant

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0

82.3

342.5

438.0

90.4

378.8

428.4

Granting Council open research programs (constant 2010 dollars, millions)

2007-08 2012-13

Declining success rates

Granting Council competition results 2006-07 2012-13

    Fundable Funded Fundable Funded

SSHRC Standard Research Grant/Insight Grant 80% 40% 65% 27%

NSERC Discovery Grant   - 73% - 62%

CIHR Open Operating Grant 66% 21% 65% 9%Source: SSHRC, NSERC, CIHR

Strategy for Partnerships and Innovation “helping to organize ‘speed dating’ events to bring interested researchers and companies into brief and structured contact to discuss needs and capabilities.”http://www.nsercpartnerships.ca/StrategyPartnership-StrategiePartenariats_eng.asp

The Engage Grants (EG) Program is supporting “short-term research and development projects aimed at addressing a company-specific problem.”http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/RPP-PP/Engage-Engagement_eng.asp

NSERC Initiatives – examples

Engage Grant Program

Source: NSERC

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

$20,000,000

$1,393,159

$11,553,631

$17,797,604

Engage Grant Program(2010 constant dollars)

Engage grant

“Working with the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) to develop an effective Concierge Service for business that includes the expertise within the postsecondary research community:

“In 2013-14, NSERC will work with IRAP to assess and implement tools to link the expertise base within the NSERC systems with the new Concierge Service system being developed under the leadership of IRAP.”http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Reports-Rapports/RPP-PPR/2013-2014/index_eng.asp#s2.1.3

NSERC: Report on Plans and Priorities 2013-14

NSERC Spending Priorities

  Actual spending Projected spending % Change  2010-2011 2013-2014 2010-2014People: Research Talent 355.0 276.1 -22.2%Discovery: Advancement of Knowledge 467.1 392.7 -15.9%Innovation: Research Partnerships 292.5 357.2 22.1%Total 1114.6 1026.0 -7.9%

In millions, 2013 dollars. Source: NSERC 2013-14 Report on Plans and Priorities

Diverting resources to “stars”

$10,733,333 was spent on 9 NSERC Canada Excellence Research Chairs in 2010-11 That would have supported 339 researchers with

Discovery Grants and reversed the decline in success rates since 2006

$17,833,333 was spent on 13 NSERC CERC Chairs in 2011-12 That would have supported an additional 545

researchers with Discovery Grants that year

Muzzling experts

Muzzling Government Scientists

Dr. Kristi Miller,Head, Molecular Genetics, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

2008 Federal Government Media Protocol: "Just as we have one department we should have one voice. Interviews sometimes present surprises to ministers and senior management. Media relations will work with staff on how best to deal with the call (an interview request from a journalist). This should include asking the programme expert to respond with approved lines."

Muzzling Academic ResearchersProf. Andreas MuenchowAssociate ProfessorGraduate College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware

DFO Publication Review Committee Procedures: “All journal articles…must be submitted to your Division Admin for review and approval prior to being submitted for publication. Publication review procedures apply to all submissions where a DFO Science staff member is an author (whether the single author, or one of multiple co-authors)."

Muzzling Librarians & Archivists“On occasion, LAC employees may be asked by third parties to teach or to speak at or be a guest at conferences as a personal activity or part-time employment. Such activities have been identified as high risk to LAC and to the employee with regard to conflict of interest, conflict of duties and duty of loyalty. “An employee may accept such invitations as personal activities if all of the following conditions are met:o The subject matter of the activity is not related to the

mandate or activities of LAC;…o The third party is not a potential or current supplier

to/collaborator with LAC;…o The employee has discussed it with his or her manager,

who has documented confirmation that the activity does not conflict with the employee’s duties at LAC or present other risks to LAC.”

-LAC Code of Conduct

Directing public science for private profit

National Research Council to 'refocus' to serve business

CBC News Posted: Mar 6, 2012 1:58 PM ET 

“Canada's national government research and development agency is being transformed and ‘refocused’ into a service that providesSolutions for businesses, Canada's Minister of State for Science and Technology announced Tuesday.

“Gary Goodyear says he envisions the National Research Council becoming a ‘concierge’ service that offers a single phone number to connect businesses to all their research and development needs.”

Promoting undue corporate influence in university research

Federal Budget 2013

$121-million over two years “to invest in the strategic focus of the National Research Council to help the growth of innovative businesses in Canada”

All of the new funding for the granting councils ($37-million) to support “research partnerships with industry through the granting councils, including $12 million to enhance the College and Community Innovation Program”

CAUT Report on University Collaborations – Do they preserve academic integrity? (To be released May 2013)

See: Guiding Principles for University Collaborations –

CAUT Council 2012http://www.caut.ca/uploads/GuidingPrinc_UCollaborationv2.pdf

II. What we need to do• Educate the public about basic research

• Building pressure to Increase core funding of the granting councils and for government science

• Protect the integrity and independence of scholarly research• Make the granting councils arms-length• Fund research on the basis of scientific and scholarly importance,

as determined through peer review not political preference• Stop the muzzling of scientists and other academic professionals –

their duty is to the public, not to the minister of the day• Create a non-partisan Parliamentary Science Officer • Adopt a sound science policy for Canada

• Enforce principled standards for university collaborations• Make graduate programs affordable & pay postdocs properly

III. Some steps we are taking• Dedicated web site

• Interactive map cataloguing cancelled and “at risk” projects• Video testimonies and on-line submission forms• Email & petition tool

• Local town halls and regional forums – for researchers to talk with the public about what’s happening and what it means

• Research report on university/corporate collaborations with tool box faculty and students can use to ensure transparency and integrity in any new proposed collaborations

• Reports on granting councils’ priorities and practices • Database of researchers and scientists to facilitate advocacy

Concluding Comment from Others

nature editorialChanges to Canadian science raise questions that the government must answer

“Governments come and go, but scientific expertise and experience cannot be chopped and changed as the mood suits and still be expected to function. Nor can applied research thrive when basic research is struggling.”

Nature 487, 271–272 (19 July 2012)http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/487271b.html

“What we need are those creative people to be left to do creative things just for the hell of it … this is the game changer that forms the raw material for industry to capitalize.”

- Speech at the Perimeter Institute, 2003

Mike LazaridesFounder, Research in Motion