Funding, News and Announcements

Hi everyone,

Following are highlights from the December CIHR University Delegates teleconference:

Foundation Grant Update
As applicants are likely aware, CIHR has decided not to adjudicate the ECR applicants as a separate cohort owing to the relatively low number of applications received (~115); for more details, please see the recently posted announcement. To ensure early career investigators are still being treated fairly, CIHR has committed to awarding a minimum of 15% of grants to early career investigators as planned, as well as ensuring that approximately 50% of the applications from this cohort move from Stage 1 to Stage 2. Reviewers will also be asked to take career stage into account, with appropriate changes now having been made to the peer review document. Some UDs questioned whether the low numbers received was a reflection of the relative appropriateness of this program for ECRs. In terms of the status of the peer review process, competition chairs are currently approving assignments for Stage 1 (involving ~250 reviewers); these assignments should be going out this week.

Project Grant Update
CIHR recently held face-to-face meetings with the new competition chairs and shared with them a draft list of “clusters” based on the applications received; there was apparently very strong consensus with these clusters. Currently, CIHR is considering one scientific officer per cluster, with the potential for more at the request of the committee/cluster chair if more than one major discipline resides in the cluster. The number of clusters currently sits at 35 to 37, with the final number to be decided on shortly. The plan remains to have 60-100 applications per cluster, with 8-12 applications per reviewer. CIHR will be collecting data on its matching exercise as part of this process.

UDs were reminded that these clusters were formed based on primary or secondary area of science declared by applicants, and can – and likely will – change for future competitions; in fact, CIHR is going so far as to not “name” these clusters so as not to suggest that we are reverting back to the old committee structure. Your guess is as good as mine as to what kind of alphanumeric scheme they will adopt; personally, I’m hoping for hieroglyphics! As was indicated in earlier communications, 40% of project applications will proceed to Stage 2. After some prompting by UDs, CIHR will consider notifying unsuccessful Stage 1 applicants, but would still want to hold onto their reviews until the decision letters go out at the completion of the competition. For CIHR this both a feasibility issue (they do not want to be dealing with reviewer issues while trying to administer the competition, especially since they will be asking Chairs to “review the reviews” – a process that will take some time), and also a fairness issue (the unsuccessful cohort would be able to prepare their applications more in advance of the next competition compared to those applicants who are unsuccessful at Stage 2 if they were to receive their reviews earlier).

Gender Equity Framework
Alysha Croker, Acting Manager of Science Strategy, provided a brief overview of the Gender Equity Framework under development as part of CIHR’s Action Plan on Equity. A key objective of this Action Plan is to identify whether and where biases exist in CIHR’s application and adjudication processes, and to identify and implement specific solutions to address these biases. Not surprisingly given the federal government’s concerns regarding other funding programs such as Canada Research Chairs, gender is front and centre in some of these initial equity discussions. Overall, women do very well in CIHR competitions based on data compiled by CIHR; however, gender inequities exist in certain programs – most notably Foundation Grants particularly among the mid to senior career cohort. This inequity is reflected in the gender gap that can be seen to grow substantially within the Canadian university professoriate with progression through the ranks: While there are 1.24x more male than female Assistant Professors, this disparity grows to 3.55x at the Full Professor level. Some immediate, short-term actions being undertaken by CIHR include (1) reporting and tracking of equity-related issues within CIHR processes and procedures; (2) mandatory training for all Foundation Grant reviewers regarding unconscious (gender) bias; (3) monitoring of the 2016/17 Foundation Grant competition, with male and female applicants moving to Stage 2 proportionally to their Stage 1 application pressure if necessary; (4) revising rules for reporting on productivity measures in the CCV to account for career interruptions; and (5) participating in the organizing committee for the International Gender Summit to take place in Montreal in 2017. Stay tuned for more updates regarding this Action Plan.

International Peer Review Expert Panel
UDs were provided a brief update concerning the International Peer Review Expert Panel, details of which can be found here. Each Institute has apparently led its own consultation exercise based on the five questions to be addressed by the panel. Sir Peter Gluckman (Chief Science Advisor to the PM of New Zealand) is chairing this panel of 7 distinguished directors and advisors; an invitation has been issued as well to one of the University Delegate Executive Committee members. The Panel will be meeting in Ottawa January 16-18, 2017, with a report expected to be tabled at CIHR’s Governing Council in March/April prior to public dissemination.

As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,
Mark Filiaggi
CIHR University Delegate
Associate Vice-President Research
filiaggi@dal.ca
(902) 494-7102