Let’s Talk CIHR (part 2)
In this episode, I’m answering the survey question, “How should CIHR spend its money?”
Foreword: It is a concern to me to see CIHR stating that 80% of its budget is spent via investigator-initiated programs without being explicit about exactly which programs these are. The Project Grant program is ~$550 million/year. The Foundation program is being wound down. Can the agency at least provide transparent data? This seems to be setting up the research community for an argument between open and strategic. Such divisiveness will end badly. It doesn’t help matters that there have been superficial reviews of the strategic programs. Has anyone spoken with SPOR associated scientists? There is enormous frustration in how this program is administered. It may be doing good work but it needs re-evaluating.
Re: institute priorities, I will be submitting separate comments on the institutes (in the section: How CIHR is organized: The 13 Institutes). Their structure is basically in legislation but, fortunately, their role and budget are not. They could play an essential role in helping CIHR to work with the community without having a specific budget (details in separate submission).
The CIHR survey questions:
Within its discretionary budget, CIHR has historically directed a large majority of its funds to Investigator Initiated Research based on the rationale that this will generate innovative and timely discoveries, practices and policies. What advice would you give CIHR on an appropriate balance between funding ideas generated within the research community versus funding priorities identified by governments, partners, Institutes and CIHR?
There is clearly insufficient investment in the investigator-initiated programs. Why? Because the success rate is around 14% and yet the strategic programs tend to be significantly higher. In some cases, no awards are made to a strategic competition which is not only a waste of administrative effort but suggests the concept of the competition was disconnected from the research community. If there was sufficient funding for open competitions, then I’d dedicate 10% for top down competitions. In the current climate, it is very hard to justify any (though I know that is an impossible ask). I’d suggest that all strategic funding could be operated via the Project grant program. Simply set up an ad-hoc panel for specific questions. Set the same success rate. Reduction of support for the open competitions at a time when the Foundation grantees are re-integrating is a recipe for disaster.
CIHR has consistently funded research platforms in Canada to support excellence in health research. What advice do you have for CIHR on support for national platforms that enable the health research enterprise?
CFI has a specific budget allocation for major science initiatives such as the Canadian Light Source (the MSI program). Why is CIHR spending its limited funds on this? Support for the Canadian Council on Animal Care, etc. makes sense but could also likely be funded by other means. I’d suggest a line by line review of the platforms — not to say they are not worthy and important, but is CIHR funding the best means of support?
The allocation of the same $8.6M annual grant budget for each Institute has been in place for more than a decade. What advice do you have for CIHR on the allocation of the grant budgets to CIHR Institutes?
If Institute budgets are increased it will mean reductions elsewhere. Why do the Institutes need a budget? There is a lot of duplication of effort and evaluation. Their important role can surely be applied to connecting with the research communities and making cases for areas of research that could be supported via a Project grant (with an ad-hoc committee of appropriate experts for each specific research question).
What else would you like to tell CIHR related to the Budget?
The current CIHR budget is woefully inadequate to support the quality and amount of research that we are accustomed to. While this is not the direct fault of CIHR, it is critical that CIHR acts with transparency to maintain the highest standards. The recent Reforms debacle could easily be repeated if CIHR chooses to pursue a significantly different direction going forward. The research community is fragile, fatigued and unappreciated. CIHR must realise the pressures and disruptions it will be facing simply in re-integrating the Foundation grantees in the next few years. While it is tempting to be visionary and to propose major change, please recognize the difficult past 3–4 years and temper ambitions accordingly. Without support of researchers, CIHR is simply another office tower in Ottawa.
