Ameriacan readers: replace "NSERC"
with NSF or NIH, all the rest is
about the same
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:29:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander Berezin <berezin at mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
To: Marc Roussel <roussel at henri.chem.uleth.ca>
Cc: biocan at net.bio.net
Subject: NSERC: more comments
Thanks for comments, Marc. Let me add some more
below - Alex Berezin
On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Marc Roussel wrote:
> Dear Alexander,
> Congratulations for finally stating your case in this forum without
> undue invective. If you had been writing in this polite tone all along,
> there might have been less friction between you and others here, myself
> included. I think that your attached quotes get to the point: Many of
> us agree with you in substance.
>> In the article in question, Alexander Berezin wrote:
> > (NSERC would probably be a bit closer to it if
> > it had a multiple operating grants system, as NSF or
> > NIH have, but for some reason [ or without it ]
> > NSERC allows only one operating grant per person).
>> You have to be a bit careful about the American model. There's a
> tendency for that system to result in some extremely rich labs and many
> unfunded labs. There is more opportunity for unfunded labs to get a
> small grant for a particular project now and again, but I don't think
> that's what you have in mind.
BEREZIN:
No, I am not selling American multi-grant system as
a possible solution. My (most general) formula would
rather be "fund researchers, not proposals" for which
NSERC's (single grant) system is a somewhat better
starting point. Unfortunately, this fact does not
translate in any constructiveness. The problem with
NSERC that within its own scheme (only one operating
grant is allowed) it does not live up even to its o
wn claims:
On one hand NSERC claims the goal of "excellence"
and "competition" between "best" applications,
(hence "selectivity" and NILs) but on another
hand it impedes this goal by prohibiting people
to apply in several areas.
What if the applicant has "very good ideas" in
several areas ? (many actually, do). NSERC
(contardicting its own principle) prohibits
them to apply for more than one (and the so
called "Interdisciplinary panel" is a dismal
failure and a non-starter: we all know this).
> While I agree with the substance of your ideas, I'm not sure that
> you appreciate the political problem which they would cause if
> implemented. As far as I can tell (and I'm NOT and NSERC insider by any
> means), NSERC's selectivity is meant to make the system look good to
> politicians. When the minister responsible rises to answer a question
> from the Reform party in the Commons, he can point to the NIL awards and
> say that the system is only giving money to the most promising research.
BEREZIN:
This is were the Reform Party (and all the rest for this
matter) are to be explained that "the most promising research"
in 95 % (perhaps in 99 %) of all cases is a chimera. Again,
almost all of us agree with this. Even John Polanyi said
precisely this recently.
> What we have right now, although not ideal, is a good deal better than
> what we could have if the critics of the current scientific model (not
> just the funding model) got hold of the system: awards only to those
> pursuing hot research in industrially related areas.
BEREZIN:
Milton Freidman (Nobel Prize in economy) wrote an article
"Why Government Should NOT Fund Science" (in Science
magazin). Rostom Roy (Penn State) and few others were
very argumentative in supporting this thesis. Some may
dislike the idea and disagree, but arguments these
people present are quite strong and can't be lightly
brushed off. And like it or not, the actual NSERC policy
contributes quite a lot to the (likely, forethcoming)
public acceptance of this thesis on a more-or-less
across the board basis.
If scientists (especially, in fundamental areas)
want to do something to oppose this trend, the first
thing to do is to reject NSERC's "selectivity"
principle and reduce NIL-funded as much as possible.
Without this, the science community remains disunited
and divided upon itself. NSERC "realocation"
excercise is a classical example of a "divide-and
-conquer" policy: to split sci. community on
fighting feods ("take from them and give to us").
And we (scientists) allow them (NSERC bureaucracy)
to conduct it without any visible opposition. Shame,
shame.
It is highly unlikely that science community divided
this way is capable to come up with any constructive
off-setts of Friedman/Roy position. Why, after all,
indeed governments should fund science ? For
example, what arguments do you have to convince a
NIL-funded scientist that it is in his/her interest
that NSERC keeps to exist? Why Canadian government
should not, indeed, shut down NSERC for good and
those professors who want to do resaerch can continue
it on a part of their personal salaries ? After
all, many did this in the past and many do it now
(and often a very good, breakthrough reasearch !).
What are the disadvantages of NOT having NSERC at
all for those who already have NIL awards ? (and
undoubtedly, many more NILs are coming soon).
> By all means, let's look at ways to change the system. However,
> the proposers of change should be prepared to explain how we can deal
> with the political ramifications which the implementation of their ideas
> entail.
BEREZIN:
Fine. All we need to do is to convince POLITICIANS (not
NSERC administartion - they is unchangable), that by
forcing NSERC to adopt a sliding scale they (politicans)
are going to see:
(1) a lot more research for LESS money (people will
spend more time doing actual reasearch THEMSELVES,
instead of granstmanship and postdoc empires and
hence their research [ per dollar ] efficiency is
likely to incease), so average funding per prof.
can be made some $ 10,000 (Can) per year per
prof - VERY good amount for VERY many.
(2) a lot less bureaucracy in NSERC (or rather in
whatever will replace it in a simplified form),
because funding on a sliding scale requires much
more simple and much more uniform peer review
process.
If anyone has any other (perhaps better) ideas,
how to resolve NIL crises, please come up.
Otherwise, there is little doubt that Friedman's
dreams are soon to come true. And deservingly so.
>> Marc R. Roussel
> (roussel at henri.chem.uleth.ca)
> Department of Chemistry
> University of Lethbridge
>>
