Science Advocacy - Visits to Decision Makers
May 2001
By: Dr. Bruce Sells
CFBS Executive Director

Introduction

During the past several years the tenor of our discussions with "decision-makers" has changed markedly. This change has occurred as government policies have emerged supporting the process of Innovation. Several years ago many of the individuals with whom we met gave the impression that our issues were more self serving rather than beneficial to Canada's future. We were frequently accused of being greedy in arguing for the support that would improve Canada's ability to function as a productive and creative society. The atmosphere that we find now most prevalent is one that begs the question how the issues can be addressed rather than whether they should be addressed.

What appears further to be growing is the attitude of partnership amongst the various scientific communities. This is encouraging since Canada's scientific population is relatively small and spread thinly across the Country. While many of the Country's strategies are pointed, it seems to us, in the right direction the government needs to be encouraged to be sensitive to the fact that its ultimate goals can be achieved only by consistent investment in the innovation process.

At present, there exist a number of major issues which demand attention if Canada is to sustain itself in an increasingly competitive global economy. Before commenting on these it is important to applaud the government's initiatives enacted over the past several years. These include the creation of the CIHR, the Canada Research Chairs Program, CFI, The Millennium Scholarships and Genome Canada. The Federal Government's stated intent of achieving 5th position in support of research and development among the developed nations is a worthy goal and will help ensure that Canada has the capacity to support its creative minds.

In this year's round of visits with "decision-makers", therefore, we dealt with what we perceived as impediments that will hamper the Federal Government from achieving the goals it had set out for itself. These included:

1. The need for highly qualified personnel over the next decade.
2. The requirement for post secondary education "core funding" if we are to produce the quality personnel needed in academe, government and industry as "baby boomers" retire.

3. Providing the overhead costs of research to ensure that post secondary institutions do not deplete their operating budgets to satisfy the research infrastructure needs. This action will help maintain an environment that guarantees high quality education.
4. Encouraging Government to deliver on its commitment to increase its funding of research in Canada to a level that puts our Country in 5th position amongst developed nations.
5. Assist the granting Councils to be more effective in forward planning by changing the way government allocations are delivered. The case is being made for Government allocations over a 3-year period rather than the current one -year allocation.

Comments of Individuals Visited

In our discussions with the Director of Policy Development, Industry Canada, the problems of Provincial/Federal jurisdiction was raised as an impediment to Federal contributions to Post Secondary Education "core funding". At the same time The Department of Industry is committed to improving the support for Research and Development over the next 10 years. Furthermore, although CFI and Genome Canada both require industry-matching funds, it is now recognized that these matching funds are becoming scarce.

In our meeting with Human Resources Development Canada the need for training grants and student employment was raised with regard to personnel development and reducing student debt load. Although HRDC is providing funds for the "skills agenda" encouraged by Industry Canada it was pointed out to the HRDC representative that the HRDC summer grants were not as effective as they could be. These funds failed to meet the objectives of HRDC since they were awarded too late (usually May of each year) for the individual supervisor to factor them into his recruitment plans. HRDC seemed unaware of this problem. Secondly since the amounts provided per student is not a complete stipend it was suggested that HRDC form a partnership with the granting agencies to increase the number of awards available and at a time which would more effective fulfill the innovation strategy.

Our meeting with Peter Adams, M.P. Caucus Chair, Post Secondary Education and Chair of Human Resources Development revealed that he was aware of our concerns and the issues listed above. Again, the question of Provincial-Federal jurisdiction was raised. He made us aware of his Caucus' letter to the Minister of Finance addressing the issues of funding of research indirect costs, university "core-funding" increasing research funding in a timely fashion and the student debt load upon graduation. The need was raised with Peter Adams for multi-year funding of the granting councils to allow them to be more effective in their forward planning.

Our meeting with the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) focused on indirect costs of research and it was their impression that progress was being made on this issue but it is still unclear when and how such funds would be delivered. CFI is interested in advancing international projects and in providing funds for unique facilities. This latter thrust would give Canada greater visibility on the global stage. It was recommended that Canadian researchers follow CFI closely since new programs were being created on short notice.

From our visit to Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), we were made aware of their plans for targeted research initiatives. CIHR is interested in training grants, multidisciplinary research and training in ethics. CIHR is initiating "block training grants" in some of their institutes to fund graduate student and post-doctoral training. We were advised that research funding in CIHR is divided roughly into 2 pools: one, the investigator initiated pool represents 60-70% while the second pool, targeted to selected areas represents 30-40% of CIHR funding. The need for indirect costs of research is supported by CIHR but concern was expressed that funding of "direct costs" of research should not be compromised and suggested that there should be a report card indicating how these funds are spent. Their unease was that such funds could be used to build up a system to administer research funds within universities and this would only be beneficial to the country provided sufficient funds were available to satisfy the direct costs of research. CIHR is currently very concerned that their funding increases are not reaching the levels required to fuel the research demands of the enlarged mandate of CIHR.

Our visit to Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) dealt with issues related to government allocations to this granting council which is under increasing pressure from new applicants as current faculty members retire, from the research chairs program and the operating costs related to infrastructure funded by CFI. NSERC dilemma was further highlighted by the fact that without a Federal Budget they are unsure of their capacity to deliver the programs expected of them. The importance of attracting students into research careers was a high NSERC priority. A suggestion of a partnership between NSERC and Human Resources Canada to provide more summer student stipends and graduate student support was raised. The serious burden that the indirect costs of research have imposed upon universities was also recognized in these discussions.

All the above will be included in the report to the "Biomed" members of CFBS .

What follows below will be included in communications to the "Biological" community.

A meeting with John Herity, Biodiversity Convention Office, dealt with issues related to biological collections, the need for highly qualified personnel and support for indirect costs of research. He reported to us that Canada has followed the UN biodiversity convention for the past 10 years. Canada's biodiversity strategy includes the Federal Biosystematics Centre, the Global Biodiversity Information System. Currently, there are special concerns related to invasive species and the impact of biotechnology on natural systems. We emphasized to him the need for a Centre of Excellence that would include the newer tools and approaches to the area of Systematics.

Because David Anderson, Minister of the Environment, was out of the country we met with his parliamentary assistant Karen Redman, M.P. Our discussions focused on Canada's need for highly qualified personnel over the next 10 years and our special concerns related to environmental issues. She indicated that there was broad interest in government in finding ways to support these needs and to find ways of dealing with federal/provincial jurisdictional problems.