From a concerned source, here’s the text of emails the presidents of the three academic granting councils sent out to stakeholders last Thursday…while a certain lanky visitor to Ottawa was providing handy cover. I don’t think the cuts detailed here are catastrophic, in and of themselves, but I am not expert and I look forward to hearing from informed readers.
First, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, or SSHRC:
Dear Colleague:
We are writing to summarize the results for SSHRC of the recent
federal budget.1) In Budget 2009, the Government of Canada allocated $17.5 million
over three years to SSHRC for Canada Graduate Scholarships to fund an
additional 400 master’s and 100 doctoral scholarships “focused on
business-related degrees.” Subsequent to this Budget decision by the
Government of Canada, our responsibility here at SSHRC is the
administration of these additional scholarships in keeping with our
mandate to support excellence in research and research training in the
social sciences and humanities.As demonstrated over SSHRC’s thirty-year history, students pursuing
research-based graduate degrees across the social sciences and
humanities significantly enrich understanding of topics important to
our society. Moreover, SSHRC award-winners from all research degree
programs go on to benefit all sectors, including the business world.
Directly, and indirectly, the results continue to make significant
contributions to addressing the world’s most pressing challenges, as
illustrated in the current financial crisis by the central role of
business historians focused on the 1930s; philosophers focused on
business ethics; political scientists focused on regulatory
frameworks; economists focused on stimulus strategies; management
researchers focused on corporate operations; sociologists focused on
labour markets; literary scholars focused on the new digital economy;
musicologists focused on the creative industries; and so on.At the origins of such diverse contributions is SSHRC’s hallmark
commitment to excellence; every student who receives a SSHRC award has
been selected through a rigorous expert adjudication process involving
top scholars in the social sciences and humanities. It is with this
principle of adhering to the highest levels of international
excellence that SSHRC fulfills its mandate and thereby enables the
“best and brightest” to contribute so significantly to Canada and the
world.2) The Budget also included the results of Strategic Review, a process
which requires all government departments and agencies, on a four-year
cycle, to review all program spending, and to assess how and whether
these programs are aligned with core mandates, and how they are
effective, efficient and meet the priorities of Canadians. SSHRC was
one of 16 organizations, along with NSERC and CIHR, that participated
in the process this past year. The outcome of Strategic Review for
SSHRC is as follows:a) SSHRC funding is reduced for health-related research that is
eligible under the mandate of CIHR. Out of approximately $20 million
currently invested by SSHRC in health research, a reduction of $5.59
million will be phased in over three years: approximately $1.05
million in fiscal year 2009-10, $2.65 million in fiscal year 2010-11
and $1.89 million in fiscal year 2011-12. SSHRC will continue to fund
research and training for which the intended outcomes add to our
understanding and knowledge in the social sciences and humanities. A
set of guiding principles has been developed to assist applicants in
determining whether their applications are suitable for SSHRC
consideration. These guidelines will be made publicly available as
soon as possible. In the meantime, SSHRC has begun working with CIHR
to ensure a coordinated approach to the implementation of this decision.
b) SSHRC funding is eliminated for Research Time Stipends (RTS)-funds
that help to provide adequate time for faculty to conduct research.
SSHRC recognizes the central importance of time for research in the
social sciences and humanities but also recognizes that universities
have the responsibility to provide university grant award-holders with
adequate time for research.For the past decade, SSHRC has awarded RTS on a cost-shared basis with
institutions to only a small number of scholars (in 2008-09, for
example, 132 RTS were included in the total of 904 successful standard
research grants). We will no longer fund this cost-sharing, and we
will continue to require that universities confirm that all grant-
holders have appropriate time to conduct their research. This decision
does not affect salary replacements for non-academic participants in
SSHRC-funded research projects (for staff in community organizations
participating in CURA projects, for example).As of April 1, 2009, grant applications may no longer include requests
for RTS. However, forward commitments for RTS made before March 31,
2009, will be respected. Funding will be phased out over a three-year
period: approximately $300,000 in fiscal year 2009-10, $1.2 million in
fiscal year 2010-11 and $2.1 million in fiscal year 2011-12.These two changes represent a total of $8.19 million in SSHRC budget
reductions, phased in over three years.Funding under the Indirect Costs Program is being reduced in
proportion to reductions in eligible direct costs programs that are
administered by each of the funding agencies. As such, the relative
ratio of funding for the direct and indirect costs of research will
remain essentially the same as prior to Strategic Review. The 2008-09
Indirect Costs budget of $330 million will see a total reduction of
$14.652 million over the next three fiscal years. The Indirect Costs
Program grant budget will be $325.379 million in fiscal year 2009-10,
$322.080 million in fiscal year 2010-11, and $314.403 million in
fiscal year 2011-12.We welcome the opportunity to work with you in promoting a supportive
environment for research, training and knowledge mobilization in the
social sciences and humanities and in sharing more broadly the
successes and impacts of research in our fields. Please do not
hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Yours in research,Thomas Kierans
Vice President and Chair of Council
Chad Gaffield, PhD, FRSCPresident
Next, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, CIHR:
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF CIHR
Following the January 26, 2009 Speech from the Throne, the Government
of Canada tabled its 2009 Budget, Canada’s Economic Action Plan in the
House of Commons on January 27. The Budget outlined the Government’s
economic stimulus package designed to bolster the Canadian economy and
provide support for Canadians as the world’s economies work through
the current economic crisis. The Budget 2009 speech and documents can
be found on the Finance Canada website at: http://www.fin.gc.ca.Research plays a key role in improving the health of Canadians. That’s
why, over the past three years, the Government has increased the
annual base budget of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
(CIHR) by over $142 million. This year CIHR plans to spend
approximately $917 million on peer-reviewed health research projects
conducted at universities, hospitals and research centres across Canada.I have summarized below the details of Budget 2009 as it relates to
CIHR.First, CIHR will receive $35M over the next three years for Canada
Graduate Scholarships (CGS) to fund an additional 200 doctoral
scholarships, valued at $35, 000 each per year for three years
beginning in 2009-10, and an additional 400 master’s scholarships,
valued at $17, 500 each for one year, in both 2009-10 and 2010-11.Second, Budget 2009 also provided the results of the Government’s
Strategic Review process. CIHR was one of the 21 Government
Departments and Agencies that undertook a Strategic Review of its
programs and services. The objective of the process was to assess
whether programs:· are effective and efficient;
· meet the priorities of Canadians; and
· are aligned with federal responsibilities.
The results of the process are as follows:
· CIHR funding of the Open Team Grant program will be
discontinued. To respect current commitments, reductions will be
phased in over the next three years with $1.5M in 2009-10, $5.5M in
2010-11, and $27.6M in 2011-12 and thereafter; and· Funding for the Intellectual Property Mobilization (IPM)
program will be discontinued. To respect CIHR’s current commitments,
the annual reductions of $2M will commence in 2010-11 and end in
2011-12.In addition, funding under the Indirect Costs Program will be reduced
in proportion to reductions in the above direct cost programs. The
relative ratio of funding for the direct and indirect costs will
therefore remain essentially the same as prior to the Strategic Review.In summary, taking into account the new investments for the Canada
Graduate Scholarships and the strategic reallocations, CIHR’s budget
for 2009-10 will increase by $12.5M, bringing our total budget to
$978.8M.Sincerely,
Alain Beaudet, MD, PhD
President
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
And finally, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, NSERC:
Dear Colleagues,
We are writing to communicate to you the decisions in the recent federal budget which affect NSERC’s programs. Before doing so, let me say that NSERC is pleased to see continuing investments in the Canadian Science, Technology and Innovation system. The significant investments in our universities and colleges through a $2 billion infrastructure fund, as well as additional funding to the Canada Foundation for Innovation, will help maintain a healthy academic research infrastructure in our country.In addition, Budget 2009 provided resources to many of our key partners, in particular the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) through their Industrial Research Assistance Program, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) in areas such as forestry, energy and the environment, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for Arctic Research Infrastructure.
More directly related to our specific role, the budget included an additional $87.5 million over three years for graduate research scholarships, which will enable up to 500 doctoral and 1,000 master’s scholarships to be supported though the three granting agencies, beginning in the current competition year.
NSERC will receive $35 million of this funding over a three-year period, which will allow an additional 200 PhD level scholarships to be awarded in the current (2009) competition, and an additional 400 scholarships at the master’s level in each of the 2009 and 2010 competitions. These investments, added to the $3.5 million over two years fund for 600 additional Industrial R&D Internships (IRDI), will provide training opportunities to our students and equip them well for their future participation in the renewed economy.
NSERC was one of 21 organizations asked to conduct a Strategic Review in 2008. This exercise requires departments and agencies to review all direct program spending on a four-year cycle to ensure their effectiveness and efficiency, and identify a minimum of 5 percent of their budget for potential reallocation to other federal government priorities.
As part of this Strategic Review process, NSERC conducted a comprehensive review of all our programs according to the following criteria: (1) need and impact of this program on the community it serves; (2) federal role and fit to NSERC’s mandate; (3) alignment with the government’s S&T strategy; and finally, (4) value for money (efficiency and effectiveness), management performance and accountability.
It is important to note that all of our major core programs were found to be high performing and were protected in this exercise. For example, the budget for our Discovery Grants Program is projected to be $326 million in 2009-10, compared to $323 million in 2008-09. Similarly, the budget of the Strategic Partnerships programs is projected to be $114 million, compared to $102 million last year.
The program changes outlined below, as a result of Budget 2009, will be phased-in over three years, and all existing funding commitments will be honoured. As a result of this exercise, NSERC will see a reallocation of $11.2 million in the first year (2009-10), $23.3 million in the second year and $34.7 million in the third and subsequent years.
The following changes to NSERC programs, included in the Strategic Review reallocations, were confirmed in Budget 2009:
* Centres for Research in Youth, Science Teaching and Learning (CRYSTAL)
The CRYSTAL program will be phased-out and funding for the five centres currently supported will not be renewed at the end of the current pilot. Existing funding commitments will be honoured, and no new competitions will be held.* Postgraduate Scholarships (PGS) program
NSERC’s PGS program will restrict awards at the master’s level to one year only. This aligns our program with that of the Canada Graduate Scholarships (CGS) program. No students currently funded will lose their scholarship. Starting with the current 2009 competition, winners of master’s level scholarships will receive one-year awards.* University Faculty Awards (UFA)
The elimination of this program was announced some time ago, and the last new awards were made in 2008. There will be no further competitions.* Research Capacity Development (RCD) program
The Research Capacity Development pilot program will not be continued. The five-year awards to the seven institutions involved in the pilot will end as planned in March 2009, and there will be no further competitions.* Major Resources Support (MRS) program
The Major Resources Support program will, in future, provide support only for major resources which are unique on a national or international scale.* Special Research Opportunity (SRO) program
The Special Research Opportunity program will be discontinued. Starting immediately, we will not accept new Letters of Intent for this program. However, NSERC will continue to support research that is urgent and has a strong potential for breakthroughs through other programs.* Intellectual Property Mobilization (IPM) program
The Intellectual Property Mobilization program will be discontinued. Current awards run until November 2009.Please note that funding under the Indirect Costs Program is being reduced in proportion to reductions in eligible direct costs programs that are administered by each of the funding agencies. As such, the relative ratio of funding for the direct and indirect costs of research will remain essentially the same as prior to the Strategic Review.
We will continue to work to ensure that our ongoing programs serve the university research community effectively and efficiently. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Fortier Hon. James Edwards
President, NSERC Chair of Council
Print
Comment
The cuts to the RTS are the most regrettable for profs, but good for undergraduate students.
RTSs meant that the SSHRC winners had reduced course loads, which in turn meant that part-time profs were hired to teach the courses that the SSHRC should have been teaching.
That was good for the SSHRC winners, since it gave them extra time to write and research. But it was bad for undergrad students since the best profs (in terms of research potential, at least) were no longer teaching as many undergrad courses.
Now SSHRC will need to convince cash-strapped universities to buy-out their courses for them and hire sessionals at full-cost. It’s unlikely that the universities will be keen on that in many cases.
So, the SSHRC winners will write fewer articles and books, but they’ll be teaching more undergrad courses.
Whether this is good or bad depends on what you think the purpose of universities is. If you think universities primarily exist to do research, then it’s bad. If you think universities are primarily there to educate students, then it’s good.
“Whether this is good or bad depends on what you think the purpose of universities is. If you think universities primarily exist to do research, then it’s bad. If you think universities are primarily there to educate students, then it’s good.”
If you think that the best way for universities to educate students is by teaching undergraduates, rather than producing research, then you’re irrelevant to the modern university, which means that you’re helping to make Canadian universities irrelevant.
The SSHRC letter doesn’t try ti justify studies that aren’t business-oriented.
As someone with two decades’ experience of undergraduate teaching and changing fads in academic administration let me ask:
Where are the researchers of tomorrow supposed to come from? Who is supposed to teach undergrads to think critically, to write clearly, to do thorough and honest research, to understand the basic tools and norms of a given discipline? Who is going to communicate to undergrads the results of the research robert vaunts?
But robert is right, in the sense that the modern Canadian university considers these sorts of questions irrelevant. It assumes that somebody, somewhere else will do all these things, and the university’s grad programs will cream off the best students, of which there will be plenty to go around.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the thing is that there actually isn’t a shortage of undergrads who want to go to grad school. Just the opposite, there are too many undergrads who want to go to grad school without realizing that (in the current job market) its going to be a dead end. So I don’t think that we do too badly as far as inspiring students.
I’ve never really understood why professors are so desperate to get out of teaching. I have to admit it’s not the most fun part of my week, but it’s not awful, and my research isn’t so important that a 2-1 load will cause any great harm to Canada.
Richard Feynman once said that he liked teaching because it made him feel like he was accomplishing something, especially when his research was going badly.
Teaching accomplishes the least when it involves teaching undergraduates. It accomplishes the most when it involves teaching graduate students. But if you’re going to have anything to teach graduates then you need to have done research.
But if you improved the quality of undergraduate teaching then . . . undergraduate teaching would accomplish more. The more you neglect it the worse it will get, until eventually the graduate students are all in remedial undergrad education and you’re “teaching” the post-docs.
Seriously, if you want to do nothing but research you should get a private sector job. Since when is it the taxpayers’ duty to subsidise peer-reviewed research?
I mean, let’s put the money into non-university (or university-affiliated) research institutes.
“Since when is it the taxpayers’ duty to subsidise peer-reviewed research?”
Since NSERC, SSHRC, and CIHR have existed. Are you saying these programs should be cut to zero?
Peer-reviewed research has always been subsidised by the taxpayer. Contract research that is 100% privately funded does not require peer review. (Peer review is intended to ensure value to the taxpayer.)
Why does the taxpayer do this? Economically it is clear that those juristictions that use taxpayer’s monies to fund state of the art pre-competitive research gain a disporportionate share of the new industry as it emerges. Aside from economics, a great university enhances the value of the surrounding community.
As an aside, the teaching versus research issue is a little old-fashioned. Current trends at major universities are to train undergraduates to appreciate and understand new research results as they are being generated. McMaster was ahead of the curve on this one, first with the medical school and later engineering but Toronto, Waterloo and Guelph all have good programs based on this premise.
I heard something about CISTI (the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information being decimated too.
It does seem a trend, doesn’t it?
Speaking of trends: look at who was cut in past Tory budgets: I believe it was 2006 that the Tory’s cut the operational funding for the Law Reform Commission of Canada, such that the LCC had to close whop. IN that same budget the Canadian Policy Research Networks were cut significantly as was the status of Women Canada. The one thing in common for these three groups was the fact that they were effective in producing research that went against their ideological agenda: the LCC promoted alternative sentencing – such as sentencing circles, mediation and conflict resolution – meanwhile the Tories were promoting hiring more police officers and building more prisons; the CPR provided slid and balanced research results on the costs of various policy options which were and are not in favour of the neoCon ideologies; status of women promoted equality, worked on issues related to the trafficking of women and children, were sympathetic to sex trade workers – all things that the Tory neocon ideology found difficult (it fat, their connection to Real Women [not] and more recent attacks on employment equity demonstrates that the Tories believe that women should be at home, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
My take on these cuts and others has been an attempt to eliminate competition in the marketplace of ideas. Harper is well known to be waging a communications war – e.g., look at the so called bloggers on the Globe and Mail boards that are taking speaking notes from the Conservative web site to obfuscate discussion on issues of importance to our society.
What a disappointment. Looking at the title of this post I thought, finally, some red-meat for us conservatives but no such luck.
Yeah. Too many big words for “conservatives.”
I would think most of the hardcore have the word “cuts” bookmarked. [ or whatever you do with computer thingies] Dolts like me just keep the radio on.
Of the NSERC funding being cut, I’ve never personally known anyone who has received any of those grants. So the impact probably won’t be enormous.
Nonetheless, Discovery grants — probably NSERC’s most important program, and one that benefits virtually every science and engineering department in the country — have been in a consistent decline over the past few years. I’ve heard that this is a result of a growing number of professors chasing a static pool of funds, rather than any cuts per se. However, it would have been far nicer to see the money from these fringe programs being rededicated towards Discovery, or some similar broad-based funding program.
The Major Resource Support program, (while being almost invisible) is extremely important. It funds access to the Canadian Light Source, the Chalk River Neutron Facility, TRIUMF for example. The restricted funds means that many of the nice shiny pieces of equipment obtained from CFI will not be as well utilized as they might have.
As someone worked extensively with all three councils, I can say that I am not at all surprised at the tenor of these letters. First of all, most of these inexperienced presidents were appointed by the current government for the same reasons that, for instance, Gaddfield, was not appointed by the Martin liberals – a lack of vision and a track record of downsizing (i.e., they are not strong leaders and will do as told). Fortier has not been terribly effective mainly due to severe health issues. Beaudet was just appointed so I have nothing to say about him.
Let me give some for instances: Gaffield took the whole first year of his appointment to come up with this strategic plan, which was basically to say SSHRC is going to do less of the same. It’s a shame that he is such a good Tory toady that he turned his and SSHRC council’s collective backs on the vision and leadership demonstrated by Marc Renaud. Now SSHRC has little choice but to do less.
Another example, Gaffield and co. knew at least 12 months in advance that SSHRC would be subjected to Strategic Review in 2008-2009. Yet they hid their heads in the sand, by all accounts, and refused to manage the situation until it was too late. So what did he do when the cuts came? 1) He killed off the RTS, which he was already on record saying it was not SSHRC’s job to ensure that researchers had the time they needed; 2) he killed off the health research funding – which should have never been put in place once the CIHR was up and running (Renaud was not perfect) – but it took Gaffield over 3 years to do so. Gaffield does not justify the businesses strings to the Tory funding increases (BTW, all Tory funding increases were met with Tory downsizing) not because he cannot (the least experienced SSHRC program officer could do this) but because he wants not to – perhaps he is fearful he might loose that very significant increase to his pension that accompanies a DM level salary as compared to a full prof. at the U of Ottawa.
In the case of the CIHR and NSERC, the cuts announced are on the whole to programs likely considered to be of marginal utility by their respective council members. The Intellectual Property Mobilization program is of greater importance to NSERC and CIHR strategically than it is to SSHRC (who never increased their funding of this partnered program over $150K per year and only very, very reluctantly (a pre-Gaffield decision); meanwhile NSERC and CIHR collectively invested some $15M). This is a program that tries to help universities take inventions to market – just the sort of thing that the 2008 Federal Science and Technology Strategy called for (there’s some irony in this cut, then). The problem with IPM is that it basically provided business grants to university intellectual property offices (IPOs), many of which have been in existence for over 25 years and have very little to show for it (academics don’t necessarily make good business people – nor public service senior managers). My guess is that the funding needed for the IPOs will be found elsewhere – perhaps an Industry Canada program (the NSERC officer that managed the program moved to Industry Canada three years ago to set up something of this nature).
NSERC’s Centres for Research in Youth, Science Teaching and Learning was a brilliant idea, when first stolen by a NSERC VP, that would bring together people from faculties of education and mathematics to ‘discover’ new pedagogical methods by which high school maths education could become better and encourage more students entering university to follow this discipline. The original beauty of this program was the desire to target Aboriginal secondary school students. Unfortunately this innovative aspect of the program was lost and never implemented.
One can understand the discomfort ‘hard’ science NSERC council members would have with this program – just as one can imagine the discomfort of the Disease and Body-parts CIHR council members have when it comes to dividing up their funding-pie to support social determinates of health research, for instance, which fortunately seems to have been overlooked in the CIHR’s response to Strategic Review. But then given that health concerns are almost always one of the top three of public opinion issues and given how easy it is to justify health research as opposed to, say the importance of literary studies, it is not too surprising that the CIHR appears to have gotten off fairly easy.
Much more can be said but one thing seems to me to be an overriding theme – the lack of leadership shown by people like Gaffield and Fortier. BTW, why did Gaffield find it necessary to hide behind Tom Kierans’ name in his letter to his ‘colleagues’? By all accounts, (alphabetically, hierarchy) his should have been first and probably solely present, like was the case for Fortier and Beaudet.
Thank you for your very informative comment! Very revealing, especially your points about Gaffield.
someonewhoknows: Tom Kierans is a good guy, that’s why….
CIHR did not get off lightly, their cuts are the same percentage as the rest. What is troubling is that the $11 million of money removed from SSHRC because it was ‘health” research was not transferred to CIHR, it was cut. There was no double-dipping so this is a net loss to the health research sector.
CIHR has cut its team programs (in an age where teams are widely seen as effective ways to tackle multi-disciplinary problems). This is a significant loss (why not cut one of the 13 Institutes?). It’s also less than straightforward to end by saying that the budget of CIHR has increased when $7 million is for 400 x 1 year MSc scholarships and the rolled up decreases in years 2 and 3 are not counted.
The bottom line is that the government mandated cuts to the tricouncils at the same time that the Obama administration added $10 billion to the NIH budget. The enormous contrast defies even the most adept spin-artist.
Tom Kierans being a ‘good guy’ is no excuse for Gaffield sharing responsibilty/blame – Kierans position is not a paid one; Gaffield’s is and he should be the sole person on the hot seat. It goes with the job and the salary. I have met and spoken with Kierans and am not convinced he is as ‘good’ as you and he wish to project.
SSHRC’s health porogram was added by former president Marc Renaud – a sociologist of health – during the growing pains of the CIHR’s early days when it appeared that SS&H researchers were not getting the CIHR grants quickly enough (following significant pressure from the research community). It shoud never had been made a standard program but should have been a temporary stop over as the CIHR worked out its bugs. As such the funds for it were never earmarked for transfer to the CIHR. If Gaffield had made this change before Strategic Review, the loss might have been different.
That said, it’s not like the CIHR doesn’t already receive 3-4 times as much as SSHRC and significantly more than NSERC. Moreover, many health researchers, SS&H based or the Disease and Body-parts types get funding from the USA and have done so for decades. The health research industry will see this as a bliip. Those SS&H health researchers that for one reason or another have not already moved over to the CIHR, which is mandated to support them (and should given the reformation of the MRC to CIHR was justified in so doing), can only blame themselves for their delay and the dificulties this may bring to their work.
As a graduate student, it makes me very nervous to hear about these cuts for obvious reasons – my funding from CIHR is worded such that it can be taken away if they no longer have the funds, and I would almost certainly have to leave my degree (and research project) unfinished. I have heard that there is funding for labs, but not for the people who staff them, which is not something you want to hear as a young researcher. Thanks for bringing this up and please continue to post on the subject in the future.
While I can sympathize with your concern, the wording of all funding from each of the three councils have always had that weasle clause of – “subject to funds being available. ” While the current economic situationis differnet that it was even a year ago, my guess is that your current funding is safe. This is especialy so since the Tory’s have been quite clear that cuts identified by the councils shoud not be in the form of scholarships.
Phil’s initial point was exactly right. I’m inclined to support the cuts to the RTS. But I also found SSHRC’s response to the “business-degrees” clause a little bit cheeky. Are they saying that basically every degree they support is somehow business related (which, in a broad sense, is the case) and that they will carry on “business as usual?”
Why, yes, it is precisly what SSHRC is and has been suggesting – all disciplies can do a study related to business and therefore be eligible to recieve these funds. It might, in fact, be the only way SSHRC can move that money out the door without lapsing it – business faculties are not well know for their research cajones and collectively cannot hope to even apply for all the funding available, let along receive it based on recommendations by peer reviewers.