Current Issues
Updated January 5, 2006
CFBS Seventh Annual
Strategic Planning Meeting
Lord Elgin Hotel, Laurier Room
Ottawa, ON
November 19, 2005
Time: 10:45 AM -1:30 PM
Representatives from CFBS Member & Life Sciences societies, Government
VIPs, Granting Councils & Agencies were invited to participate.
Jump to:
Introduction | Highly Qualified Personnel
| Research Funding | Corporate
Canada | Suggestions to Granting Agencies| Final
Comments and Suggestions
AGENDA
I Introduction & Review of Last Year
As a preliminary comment to the agenda we realize that many of the issues
up for discussion require a much longer forum for their consideration.
We are, however, listing these in the hope that you as representatives
of various Societies/organizations will provide some insights that can
be incorporated into discussions with “decision-makers”.
II Items for discussion:
- Highly Qualified Personnel:
i) Attracting bright minds to post-secondary institutions regardless
of financial circumstances:
a) Should undergraduate students pay tuition?
b) Should there be a government loan program with a payback post-graduation
commencing when annual salary reaches a particular level?
c) How can we ensure that “student debt load” does not
inhibit capable students from entering graduate programs?
d) How do we get a handle on the number of graduate students that
should be trained in the Life Sciences?
ii) Given that Canada relies heavily on research performed in academic
institutions “What is a reasonable number of Life Sciences researchers
required to underpin Canada’s research effort?”
2.) What are the impediments to Corporate Canada investing
in research?
i) How can the co-funding programs be improved? What are current “best
practices” that should be applied to all programs? Since the
co-funding programs have been in existence for a significant period
should they be re-evaluated?
3.) Are there suggestions to be made to granting agencies:
i) regarding recent discussions on changes to CIHR funding system
for operating grants
ii) that will assist researchers by reducing time required for grant
writing and proposal evaluation?
4.) Are there suggestions to be made to:
i.) federal/provincial governments, post secondary institutions that
will enhance the quality of higher education in Canada?
ii) What is necessary for Federal transfers designated for post secondary
education to occur?
5.) Given that CFBS will celebrate its 50th anniversary in
2007 it is appropriate that we consider the role this organization
should play in the future.
6.) New Issues - Suggestions
STRATEGIC PLAN MEETING SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 19, 2005
As a backdrop for the 7th Strategic Planning Meeting the Chair summarized
the tenor of interactions with “decision-makers” over the
past 7 years. He noted initially the adversarial stance among some members
of the bureaucracy which has now evolved into one in which we are treated
as partners. Discussions, currently, focus on how we solve problems related
to making Canada a globally competitive society. While we would all agree
advances have been made in Canada’s attitude to innovation, it is
also clear that the rest of the world has not stood still.
Consequently, a number of concerns arise to be dealt with if
we are to advance the goals of being internationally competitive.
We note for example that the need for HQP is the underpinning of a creative
society yet during the years 1996-2000 the number of PhDs graduated failed
to increase in numbers. Expressed as number graduating per million of
population, in the year 2000, we find, also, that Germany, U. K. Australia,
France and U.S. produce substantially more than Canada does. Even in the
graduation of undergraduates we are currently in the middle of the pack
of G-8 nations. Coupled with the investments that both China and India
have made in Universities, it is clear that they recognize the necessity
of both training and retaining their best minds for the benefit of their
individual countries. The final statistic relates to Canada’s gross
expenditure (GERD) on R&D. GERD as a percentage of GDP in 2001 is
low relative to the OECD average (2.03 compared to 2.28). Given that we
wish to compete with these nations these are statistics that we should
keep in mind.
In this discussion the session focused on how this can generate
the number and quality of individuals with undergraduate and graduate
degrees to ensure that Canada can compete in the world of ideas.
Comments were heard regarding tuition costs and whether the current levels
are a factor in dissuading students i) from entering university and/or
ii) going on to graduate school. David Thomas indicated that in
Quebec, where tuitions are the lowest in Canada, the participation rate
is lower than in the rest of the Country. He opined that tuition
rates did not, currently, prevent students from entering university if
they wanted to. The main point, he suggested, was to make universities
attractive places to study. The last 15-20 years have seen a dramatic
drop in university operating budgets, fewer laboratory opportunities for
undergraduates and a deterioration of university buildings. Coupled with
fewer faculty members and a growing number of undergraduates. Many young
people also question whether they would aspire to being a university professor.
This was not the case 25 years ago.
While tuition costs may not play the major role in deterring young students
from entering university we have seen a drop, however, in those entering
professional programs, especially those from families of low or middle
income. There is also some indication that a number of capable students
with heavy undergraduate debts are also reluctant to begin graduate studies.
Recent improvements to graduate stipends are helping.
It was observed that a major end usage of graduate students is industry
and the question was raised "what contribution does industry
make to the training of those graduate students?". There
are currently, through NSERC-Industry programs that provide stipends for
graduate students/post docs. Is it possible for Government to give tax
brakes to encourage industry to invest more extensively in graduate education?
In the discussion it was pointed out that there are situations in which
the supply of post doctoral fellows does not meet the demand and that
a number often leave the country for further training; not all of these
individuals return to Canada. Efforts are needed to encourage
more students to enter science programs. NSERC reported that
they are targeting schools long before the undergraduate stage to have
them become interested in biological and engineering sectors.
The last 8 years have seen substantial increases in the support of innovation
in Canada. Senior officials have suggested that this same rate of increase
cannot be expected to continue. Given that other global competitors have
continued to invest extensively in research, to be creative, Canada,
however, cannot afford to be complacent. A comment was made that
often money allocated to research Agencies was one-time only. Allocations,
over a longer time-frame, from the Federal Budget are desirable for effective
forward planning. Governments should be sensitive to the fact
that long term planning is essential for a sustained successful research
effort. It was also noted that Canada has neither a Canadian Science
Policy nor a Cabinet Minister for Research. It is important that
Canada address this deficit.
The suggested increase of 5% for both NSERC and CIHR was a matter of
concern to the life science community and represents a challenge for both
granting agencies. If not increased further this means that the number/level
of awards to researchers will drop from what occurred last year. What
will help to encourage government to be more generous is the establishment
of “milestones” by the research community that indicate what
is being achieved with taxpayers’ dollars.
The point was also made that Canada needs to participate in international
partnerships. This not only gives Canada greater visibility but
also provides additional opportunities for Canadian scientist to become
involved in programs too expensive for any one country and with the potential
to create future social and economic development.
The CIHR representative provided the forum with a rationale for team
grants. Since CIHR created an open competition for team grants,
the number of applications has doubled. A perception exists that to encourage
cross-disciplinary research, team grants have a role to play. In considering
applications for team grants a major criterion is to assess whether the
researchers on the application have evidence that they have previously
worked and published together. A practical issue was raised concerning
“mega grants”. Is there a need for a separate pot of money
for the “big number” grants? The NSERC representative indicated
that NSERC tried to encourage group grants for many years, with no expressed
interest, and have cancelled this option. Many outstanding researchers
have emphasized that the underpinning of creative ideas lies in the individual
grant programs.
The challenge of a 5% increase to the Granting Agencies was
commented on by both representatives. In view of the 5% increase, plans
are being made not by staff but by the researchers.
NSERC’s approach has been to talk to Industry, raise the profile
of their programs, and to get Industry involved in student scholarships.
CIHR also has programs of this nature with Industry contributing 2/3 of
a student’s stipend and CIHR 1/3. CIHR approaches Industry as a
major end-user of research trainees. Raising awareness of this fact and
the Agencies’ programs is their approach to Industry.
The executive director from Biotech Human Resources Council (BHRC) commented
that in the biotech community the developing industries are concerned
with obtaining financing. It was noted that manufacturing can, often,
be made more competitive when doing work offshore. Regulatory affairs,
also, pose problems; it is often easier to get a license in the U.S. than
in Canada. Another problem is the difficulty in obtaining venture capital.
The Federal Government needs to examine how this Country can encourage
more high risk investments.
Concern was expressed at the level of representation on the Governing
Council of CIHR by the Biomedical Research Community in light of the changes
being suggested regarding the workings of grants committees.
The CIHR representative indicated that CIHR has struggled with the best
way to consult the community; members present responded by revealing that
they had lost faith in the governing council. It was suggested that greater
use be made of CIHR university delegates who can be very effective in
providing feed-back.
Comments were received, also, regarding the Society of Toxicology
of Canada (STC) and the apparent difficulty they have in finding
a home for their grant applications. This Society was encouraged
to discuss the issue with CIHR when we next meet. Currently, the
various panels of CIHR are being reviewed to provide the granting process
with more accountability and transparency.
It was recognized that with the investments in innovation that have occurred
over the past 8 years, the Government would find it helpful for the scientific
community to communicate milestones that have been achieved. This should
be done on an ongoing basis.
Comments were heard regarding how to encourage more young people to
enter college /university and graduate training. NSERC has been targeting
schools long before the undergraduate stage to develop students’
interest. It was suggested that more interest could be generated in graduate
programs if senior undergraduate fellowships could be developed along
with support for the training university laboratory/supervisor.
We were pleased with the active contributions of the participants and
the suggestions made. These will form the basis of future actions when
CFBS meets with “decision-makers”.
|
