Funding, News and Announcements

Hi all,

Following are brief highlights from the December CIHR University Delegates teleconference:

CIHR Updates
Delegates were asked to encourage their respective research communities to provide input on the peer review process. One survey is directed at recent applicants, with a focus in particular on making sure that the composition and mandates of the review committees meet the needs for those engaged in interdisciplinary work. Please respond if you have not already done so. A second survey is now available to the community at large; note that the deadline to complete this survey has been extended to December 8^th.

Project Grant Update
Application reviews are currently underway, with 51 of the 63 Committee meetings having taken place as of December 7^th.  The feedback thus far from panel participants has been generally positive, with many liking the peer review process and having two SOs per committee; most are happy with the handling of multidisciplinary applications and with their respective committee mandates. CIHR has noted issues voiced concerning the use of attachments and the desire for more budget information from applicants. CIHR clarified that there is no formal requirement for committee members to leave the room when an application from their institution is discussed, with such action taken only where it is clear there is a direct conflict of interest. It was noted that for some large institutions especially there may be no relationship between the committee member and applicant.

Notice of Decisions will be communicated on January 23^rd as previously noted. Delegates asked if it would be possible to release comments prior to the NODs given the short timelines between NODs and the next competition; this had apparently become the practice in pre-Reform days. CIHR will look at the technical and operational feasibility of providing this information. Delegates voiced some concerns about the diversity of certain committees and whether committee compositions will be revisited for the next round. At this point, CIHR expects that the majority of panels will remain in place for the next year, with a few additions to address diversity and expertise. There will be a long-term plan in place to use the College to “rejuvenate” these panels.

Foundation Grant Update
Stage 1 reviews are now complete, with notices to have gone out December 7^th. Of the 303 applications, 187 will be invited to Stage 2; results will be posted shortly to the CIHR website. Gender equity was respected here, with a “small” adjustment required to maintain the intake ratio (28% female) for Stage 2. The “big” news was a recent budget re-allocation that will see another $25M moved from the Foundation program to the current Project competition in response to application pressure. This means that there will now be $100M available for the current 2017 Foundation competition, with likely 30-35 applicants being funded (so, approximately a 10% success rate overall). For the Project grants, this additional funding will essentially maintain success rates at around 13-14% given the large number of applications in this round. The deadline for Stage 2 applications remains February 6^th, 2018. Given the budget reduction, some delegates wondered why such a relatively large number of applications were approved for Stage 2. CIHR indicated that, since this Foundation review process relies on a ranking system, a sufficient number of applications in each of the expert areas was required for validity.

As indicated previously, a Foundation Grant Program Review Committee will be examining the future of this Foundation program. Terms of Reference and Committee membership have now been posted.

College of Reviewers
The 5^th meeting of the College Chairs took place in November. The current focus in on mentoring, with two rounds of consultation planned to determine in the first instance what tools and resources institutions are currently using with respect to peer review mentoring. The College then plans to pilot a tool kit for running simulations / mock peer review processes at some institutions.

Membership after two phases of recruitment now sits at just under 4,000. The next phase of recruitment will begin in late January. Updates will be provided then to institutions regarding the current enrollment of their members and who will be approached in this next round.

Fundamental Science Review and Government Commitments
An brief update was provided on the federal government’s response to the Fundamental Science Review. One aspect has been around improving governance and coordination, with the most notable response being the creation of a Canada Research Coordinating Committee (CRCC) that is intended to help the granting councils achieve greater harmonization, integration, collaboration, and coordination f TC3+ programs and policies. A new advisory council on Science and Innovation has also been “announced”, though no concrete action has been taken so far. Dr. Mona Nemer was appointed Canada’s Chief Science Advisor in September, and a secretariat will be established to support her in this new role. Researchers, of course, are more interested in actions to be taken to re-invest in the research system. The Ministers of Science and Health are now working together to define the government’s position on this re-investment strategy. At this stage, additional funding for the granting councils ( a key recommendation of the Review) will be sought through the annual budget process.

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