2010-05-13

To the Editor,

After reading your story on the results of NSERC's 2010 Discovery Grants competition in the April 23/10 edition of RE$EARCH MONEY, I have a few concerns that I wanted to bring to your attention.

The article presents the facts clearly, but only tells part of the story. Beginning with the headline, it overemphasizes the change in success rates, leaving the impression that this represents a failure in the new process. This is not at all accurate. I believe the most important story coming out of this competition is that NSERC has changed the peer review system in a way that more effectively rewards excellence when and where it is to be found. The fact that the system is now flexible enough to quickly ramp up funding for rising stars gets lost in the article, as does the point that the funding level of a grant is more clearly linked to the applicant's productivity.

I believe that the paragraph that begins with, "It is worrisome," attempts to link two different ideas, and reinforces the message that something is not working well in the new process. I am not worried about the results. It's true that our current practices will result in a larger pool of unsuccessful applicants developing over time. This is a consequence of achieving our goal of supporting the most productive researchers in Canada at levels that are internationally competitive. Any of the unsuccessful applicants can return the following year with a proposal, which can be funded provided that it is sufficiently strengthened to meet the bar of excellence set by their peers. This was the case for nearly one in three of this category of applicants in the 2010 competition. Again, the central point is that all those who meet the standard of excellence will receive a Discovery Grant, and those scientists will be well positioned to be world class researchers of which Canada may be very proud.

Isabelle Blain

VP, Research Grants and Scholarships Directorate

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada