Perspectives (volume 4, number 3) - universities guaranteed new scientific equipment in years 2006-2010 SSHRC increase, Indirect Research Costs remain under review (fwd)

[Richard Plant]

Hello all:

Here's the latest copy of Perspectives.

Richard Plant
Dept of Drama, Queen's University
and
Graduate Centre for Study of Drama,
University of Toronto

   Vol 4  number 3) - universities guaranteed  new scientific equipment in
years
    2006-2010 SSHRC increase, Indirect  Research Costs remain under review

PERSPECTIVES
An electronic newsletter on research and science policy.  A pilot project
of the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada.

PERSPECTIVES will appear at regular intervals throughout the year and will
be posted on the Federation web site:
http://www.hssfc.ca/Perspectives/PerspectEng.html  Please address your
comments and suggestions to Jacqueline Wright, Executive Assistant, at:
jawright at hssfc.ca.

PERSPECTIVES (Volume 4, Number 3)
April 6, 2001

Editor: Wayne Kondro

Table of contents:

1)      Introduction
2)      The CFI Windfall
3)      CFI support for operating costs
4)      Other goodies
5)      Granting Council budgets and indirect costs
6)      An Atlantic Imbroglio

1) INTRODUCTION
Universities Guaranteed New Scientific Equipment in Years 2006-2010
SSHRC increase, Indirect Research Costs remain under review

The re-equipping of Canadian university and hospital laboratories will
steam ahead unimpeded through the year 2010.

But there's no immediate relief in sight for hard-pressed granting council
budgets.

Fiscal year-end spending aimed at whittling down a projected $16-billion
federal budget surplus earlier this month saw the government pump an
additional $750-million into the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) for
new research infrastructure awards.

But the spending didn't include an increased outlay for the Social Sciences
& Humanities Research Council, despite the fact SSHRC's share of the
research pie continues to dwindle relative to the size of the community it
serves. Even the new CFI monies aren't expected to greatly benefit
researchers in the social sciences and humanities, as their success in CFI
competitions has been nominal.

"While it is obvious that the CFI initiative has done much good, it is
important to remember that the needs of the larger number of Canadian
researchers have not been met," says Humanities and Social Sciences
Federation of Canada president Dr. Patricia Clements. "We urge the
government to balance its support for Canadian research. Current innovation
policy is feeding only half of the body and the impacts on the whole body
are about to become acute."

Concerns that the social sciences and humanities are being increasingly
marginalized within the government's overall innovation strategy were also
exacerbated last month when the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA)
released a consultation document indicating that some $300-million
available for investments in Atlantic universities and research
institutions will only flow for research and development in the natural and
applied sciences.

That's worrisome, Clements says. "In the knowledge-based global economy, a
proposal to exclude social sciences and humanities research from the
Atlantic Innovation Fund suggests a shortsighted and narrow view of the
needs of the future. Innovation is not only about technological products
and processes. It is also about social and cultural issues."

2) THE CFI WINDFALL

Celebrations are becoming standard fare at the CFI when the federal
government turns its mind to spending its bulging coffers.

The agency received its third major cash injection in a year when Tobin
announced March 6th that $750-million will be immediately funneled into the
CFI for infrastructure awards to be made between the years 2006-2010.

The hike comes on the heels of a $400-million outlay for infrastructure
operating costs and a $100-million outlay to promote Canadian participation
in international research projects which the CFI received last fall (see
Perspectives, Vol. 4 No. 1), as well as a $900-million bonanza which the
CFI received in the February/2000 budget (see Perspectives, Vol. 3 No. 7)

The new $750-million outlay will raise Ottawa's total CFI spending to
$3.15-billion, which Tobin stressed is part and parcel of the government's
"core strategy to strengthen innovation" by bolstering the capacity of
universities to perform world-class research.

But the actual outlay will easily top $3.15-billion as the CFI will earn
significant revenues from investing the monies it's been given for future
competitions.

The $750-million, for example, is projected to increase to at least
$1-billion by the time its first needed in 2006.

CFI president Dr. David Strangway says the monies will be socked away in
"very secure" investments like Triple-A rated bonds and real-estate funds.

"Obviously, the more secure those investments, the less the return. But we
do very well, actually. We do the best we can making sure we're protecting
the public purse," Strangway added.

Although the CFI isn't sinking the monies into risky investments like
Japanese technology stocks, "I don't think it's unreasonable to think that
$750-million might be pretty to close to $1-billion by the time it's needed."

The new monies were ticketed strictly for infrastructure outlays rather
than any other form of CFI programming, like support for operating costs or
infrastructure support for newly-appointed research chairs.

But Strangway anticipates the CFI will have some latitude as to how to
spend the windfall from the additional investment revenues that accrue.
Given that the monies won't be spent until after 2005, "we'll be able to do
a lot of planning and strategic thinking and seeing where the needs are
evolving and changing."

While social sciences & humanities infrastructure programs continue to be
dramatically under-represented in CFI outlays, Strangway says the agency
has no plans to earmark any of the new funds for those communities.

"Once you start getting earmarking, you're already setting criteria and
then once you open it up for group A, then it becomes group B and group B
wants to subdivide into B1, B2 and B3."

It's far preferable to use moral suasion on universities – such as
workshops — to stimulate universities into coming forward with more social
sciences & humanities infrastructure projects, Strangway says. Only 30
social sciences & humanities projects were submitted in the most recent CFI
competition.

3) CFI SUPPORT FOR OPERATING COSTS
Strangway says the CFI has ironed the kinks out of its plans to spend the
$400-million it received last fall for indirect research costs associated
with the operation and maintenance of CFI-supported infrastructure.

The notion of allowable indirect costs has been defined as "operating costs
in direct support of a piece of equipment. Let's say, for example, that a
genetic sequencer needs two technicians and so on. We will support that
order of things, which is not as broadly based on the whole issue of
indirect costs, because that covers a much wider range. What we're really
saying is this is a contribution to using that facility."

With direct operational costs typically held to be on the order of 10 per
cent/year of the original capital outlay, Strangway adds the CFI will
provide universities with a grant amounting to 30% of their total awards in
any one competition to cover operational costs associated with that
infrastructure over a three-year period.

For example, if a university's total infrastructure awards in the
forthcoming CFI competition was $10-million, it would receive an additional
$3-million in operational support for a three-year period.

The monies will flow to the university unconditionally but they must
subsequently provide "a very good audit trail," Strangway says.

4) OTHER GOODIES
Ottawa's late-year largesse extended to Genome Canada, as Tobin also
announced that $140-million will be pumped into the national genomics
initiative to create genome centers in British Columbia, the Prairies,
Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

The additional outlay brings total federal support for Genome Canada to
$300-million and will significantly ease pressure created by extraordinary
demand for research support under the program, says Genome Canada president
Dr. Martin Godbout.

After receiving $160-million from Ottawa last year and generating an
additional $240-million in contributions from the provinces, Genome Canada
solicited proposals from the research community and received 275 letters of
intent valued at $1.2-billion.

Those proposals were subsequently peer reviewed and chopped down to 31
projects valued at roughly $620-million. With Genome Canada now having
generated $540-million and hoping to raise an additional $80-million from
the provinces, it is now in a position to support nearly all of the 31
proposals to the tune of $5-$10-million per year for a four-year period.

But Godbout says not all of the projects will make the final cut when
Genome Canada's governing board meets later this month to determine which
initiatives proceed. Some are expected to be merged while others may be
winnowed out by last-minute analysis.

Still, the additional federal monies "will help very much" in ensuring that
an optimum number of the projects proceed, Godbout says.

5) GRANTING COUNCIL BUDGETS AND INDIRECT COSTS
Despite ongoing concerns that social sciences & humanities spending in
universities is under siege because institutions are increasingly
hard-pressed to find funds for research associated with CFI infrastructure
awards or the federal government's new 21st Century Chairs of Research
Excellence, it appears little immediate relief is in the offing in the form
of increased council research grants.

Federal science mandarins say it'll be the 2001-02 budget at the earliest
that will provide an increase in SSHRC's or the Natural Sciences &
Engineering Research Council base budgets. The pressure is less severe at
the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which last month received a
previously scheduled $71.3-million increase (see Perspectives, Vol 2. No. 6)

The latter hike has again raised concerns about the relative lack of equity
in federal support for the social sciences and humanities. Although SSHRC
represents the largest segment of the research community --with 53.5 per
cent of full-time faculty in universities-- its proportional share of the
historical research pie continues to hover in the neighbourhood of 12%.

But Tobin insisted further review is needed before proceeding with
increases in granting council budgets, although he hinted Ottawa will look
favorably on the issue.

Asked if Ottawa has plans to address council budgets or move with a program
to cover indirect operating costs at universities, (see Perspectives, Vol.
3, No. 16) Tobin re-stated Liberal election campaign promises to increase
federal government spending on research & development by $2-billion over
the next decade.

"There is no question that we need to address and we will be addressing
some of the other agencies and some of the other stresses and strains on
the system," he told reporters. "There is going to be money available for a
wide variety of funding agencies."

Of course, that does little to provide immediate relief for the
hard-pressed SSHRC budget and already there are signs the council's
governing board will have to find new economies.

To that end, sources say SSHRC's board appears to be moving to defer plans
to conduct a competition this year to create more Community University
Research Alliances (CURAs). SSHRC will also modestly scale back outlays
under its Joint Initiatives programming.

At its recent council meeting, sources say council also opted to re-profile
some its available funds this year to restore success rates in its general
operating grants competition, which sunk to an all-time low of 29% last
year in competition for new grants, a drop of nearly 11%. By comparison,
NSERC success rates for new grants topped 65%.

Despite heavy interest in the CURAs program (some 478 applications in
1998-2000, of which a mere 12% were funded), "running a competition this
year, with money flowing this year, just can't be done. We might be able to
run it, as long the money doesn't flow until 2001-02 and that's only if we
get a budget increase," says one official.

Federal science mandarins say SSHRC has also been lobbying heavily for an
increase to alleviate a discrepancy in student support relative to its
sister granting councils.

A University of Toronto study indicates that in the area of Ph.D. student
support, grants in the humanities are typically on the order of $9,000,
while those in social sciences are roughly $11,600. By comparison, grants
in the life sciences are typically $14,600 and $15,400 in the physical
sciences. The discrepancy is even greater when measuring the percentage of
students supported. It's 2.4% in the humanities and 3.1% in the social
sciences, as compared to 29.9% in the physical sciences and 35.4% in the
life sciences.

SSHRC projects it would need an additional $20-million per year just to
achieve parity with NSERC in student support. Only 4% of social sciences
and humanities graduate students are now supported, compared to 10% in the
natural sciences and engineering. Current SSHRC stipends are $4,000 less
than those of NSERC, while SSHRC provides no support whatsoever at the
master's level.

Overall, SSHRC argues it needs some $17-million is necessary this year to
allay pressing needs. That would include an additional $10-million in Ph.D
support, $5-million for new CURAs and $2-million for Joint Initiatives.

With demand across all its programming continuing to skyrocket, SSHRC
projects it will need an additional $54-million in 2002-03, $86-million in
2003-04 and $93-million in 2004-05. The council's budget for the current
fiscal year is $126.9-million.

6) AN ATLANTIC IMBROGLIO
Meanwhile, another federal initiative, the $700-million Atlantic Innovation
Fund (AIF) is raising serious concerns that the social sciences and
humanities are again being sidelined by federal programming.

The new AIF includes a $300-million component to develop the capacity of
Atlantic universities to create and commercialize new technologies, as well
as form partnerships with the private sector in the development of new
technologies.

But an AIF consultation document, which ACOA last month circulated to
Atlantic universities and other stakeholders, explicitly states that the
AIF "will focus on assisting research and development which is based on the
natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics, life sciences, ocean
sciences, etc.) and applied sciences (e.g. engineering, computer science
including software development, etc.) versus the broader innovation
spectrum which would include social sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology,
etc.) and the humanities (e.g., philosophy, arts, languages, etc.)."

Monies will be available largely for commercialization of new technologies,
products and services in select strategic sectors, namely "aquaculture,
environmental technologies, information technologies (e.g., communications,
geomatics), health and medical technologies, ocean technologies and
bio-technology."

Atlantic universities lag behind their counterparts in other parts of the
country in their ability to spur economic development through research and
early-stage commercialization of new products and services, the document
adds. "The universities and other research institutions which carry out the
bulk of R&D within Atlantic Canada operate with physical infrastructure and
resources below the standards of other regions of Canada and the U.S."

"A significant base of research infrastructure exists in Atlantic Canada in
its excellent universities and colleges, and an impressive number of R&D
institutions. However, there are gaps in the institutional infrastructure.
The region's institutions lack the financial resources to fully access
major national programs, such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation.
Technology incubation models and technology commercialization mechanisms
are too few and are still at a ‘pilot' stage."

As part of the bid to make the Atlantic Canada economy more innovative, the
paper argues, universities in the regions must accept "a chance in focus
and mission from the past."

University research must become collaborative and multi-disciplinary, while
adopting strategies "built on commercialization of R&D results."

ACOA spokesman Deborah Corey says the agency is seeking to link
universities more integrally into the local innovation system to promote
growth in the region. Among the types of assistance that might be available
to Atlantic universities is monies for the creation of commercialization or
business development offices, as well as funding for research projects.

"It's hoped that it will help them build their research capacity and
perhaps attract more world-class researchers and therefore attract
high-calibre graduate students and make that relevant contribute to
economic development."

But after consultations with groups like the Association of Atlantic
Universities --–which expressed concerns about making commercialization a
‘mission' of universities and about the explicit exclusion of the social
sciences and humanities— Corey says ACOA will be reconsidering the AIF to
see if it can be made "more flexible."

"It is more obvious or more likely perhaps that you get the kind of results
or products resulting from the applied sciences that would have that
economic benefit. But it's not intended that it would totally exclude those
sciences that are outside the applied sciences. It's a challenge to the
creativity and innovation of project proponents to demonstrate" how social
sciences and humanities can be embedded in research proposals, Corey said.

"I think the intent is to keep it as flexible as possible. We're still
doing some tweaking on the program."

Editor:
Wayne Kondro is a freelance writer based in Ottawa.  The former Editor of
the "Science Bulletin", an independent newsletter on national S&T policy,
he is currently a regular contributor to such publications as "Science" and
"The Lancet".