For the project scheme, meanwhile, applica-
tions would be judged on the quality and origi-
nality of the idea, rather than on the researcher’s
experience. The grant would be for a period of
three to five years and its average value about
$125,000 annually.
“This isn’t a tweaking but a major rework,”
said Donald Weaver, a professor of chemistry
and holder of the Canada Research Chair in
Clinical Neuroscience at Dalhousie University.
Many of the proposals in the document have
merit, “but I think ultimately the proof is going
to be in the details and how the whole thing is
finally implemented,” he said.
Dr. Weaver said he’d welcome a move to a
simpler funding process with two major funding
schemes and a longer funding term for experi-
enced researchers. Currently, “you just get one
grant approved and you immediately start working
on its renewal,” he said. The proposed changes
would enable researchers “to take projects to
newer depths and I think that is an absolutely
wonderful feature of the proposal.”
CIHR supported 3,000 principal investigators
through its investigator-led funding programs
in 2010-11. The council also pays for targeted
projects in specific research areas identified by
the council. These targeted projects wouldn’t
change under the proposals.
Teachers,
school and board administrators,
educational assistants,
administrative professionals,
custodians,
university and college faculty
yourfreedom
YOURTO/ERO
Become a part of the RTO/ERO community and join us for... • Superior health plans
and resources
• Bilingual services
• Active peer community
• Group travel program
• Dependable pension
support
• Advocacy on social and
political issues
• Our award-winning
Renaissance magazine
• Community outreach
Diane Colbourne Elementary school teacher, AEFO Joel Nasimok Elementary school teacher, ETFO Robert Harris Principal, OPSTF
À votre service...pour le soin de votre avenir.
Sign up for a Retirement
Planning Workshop near you.
www.ero-rto.org/rpw-schedule-list
1.800.361.9888
Here for you now ... Here for your future.
Follow us on:
sistency of the reviews. Researchers have also said
that the peer-review system fails to adequately
fund research from across CIHR disciplines and
from new and evolving research areas. Some have
said the current pool of reviewers isn’t qualified
to assess applications from multidisciplinary and
emerging fields.
To reduce the workload both for reviewers
and applicants, CIHR proposes to introduce a
multi-phased competition process. It would reduce
the review time at each stage and the number of
applicants that move to the final review stage. It is
considering conducting fewer face-to-face reviews
and more by video conference.
Dr. Weaver praised CIHR’s proposal for a
multi-phase review system that will weed out un-
successful applications earlier, saving researchers
time. But he said he found the document vague
and “troubling” in parts, including one section
that calls for researchers to pursue collaborative
research and research that produces “findings
that are more likely to be relevant to and used by
end users.”
Dr. Aubin of CIHR said the agency isn’t sig-
naling an intention to force researchers to conduct
specific types of research. “This is an investigator-
initiated program,” she said. “I think maybe that
line is being misinterpreted by some as saying
that’s all we want to support.”
Some universities and research institutes, she
added, are concerned about a proposal requiring
applicants funded under the programmatic scheme
to secure a “commitment of support” from their
institution. “Does that mean a big bunch of
matching support? It does not,” Dr. Aubin said.
Institutional support could include release from
teaching, salaries and infrastructure, she said.
Janice Graham, a CIHR-funded medical anthro-
pologist at Dalhousie and past president of the
Canadian Anthropology Society, commended the
report for acknowledging the shortcomings in
the current system. But she was discouraged that
the redesign did little to address the concerns of
social science and humanities health researchers
who typically receive a small fraction of CIHR
funding. Many of these researchers no longer
qualify for funding by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council and were hoping
CIHR would use this opportunity to address their
research interests and needs.
She questioned the council’s move to provide
longer-term funding with less accountability for
researchers based on their track record, a move
that she said would ensure a substantial portion
