CFI takes systems approach with multi-faceted submission to science review

Predictability, coherence and flexibility underscore the Canada Foundation for Innovation's recommendations to the Advisory Panel for the Review of Federal Support for Fundamental Science. The CFI is calling for more funding for the granting councils, a new Research Facilities Performance Fund (RFPF) and a Big Science strategy to guide Canada in the medium- to long-term.

The submission responds to the federal government request to identify gaps in the current funding ecosystem as well as advice on the funding of basic research, research equipment and the need to "create a separate funding mechanism for emerging platform technologies and research areas" that have broad strategic or social benefit.

As one of Canada's biggest research funding agencies, the CFI submission uses a systemic approach to address the strengths and weaknesses of the current research environment, taking into consideration pressures faced by institutions, researchers and partners nationally and internationally. It also asks that the government "regularize the funding of the CFI particularly at the Innovation Fund level", says CFI president and CEO, Dr Gilles Patry.

"We have a five-year commitment for programs like the Major Facilities Initiative but for the Innovation Fund, it's one-off," says Patry. "If an institution or researcher asks about the next competition, there's no way for us to tell them the next scheduled competition. If we normalized the funding level at $450 million (the innovation fund's average annual disbursement between 2010 and 2015) it would provide predictability."

In the current environment, Patry says universities and researchers may submit a project "ahead of its appropriate schedule, fund it too early or not at all". He adds that the level of predictable funding CFI is requesting does not include an increase in the federal support the Innovation Fund has historically received.

The submission also recognizes adequate support for researchers as the cornerstone of the Canada's innovation system. It recommends that the government address the "funding shortfall" which has hobbled the granting councils over the 10-year reign of the Harper Conservatives — a shortfall that "threatens to compromise Canada's current and future research performance".

"We encourage the Government of Canada to consider re-establishing tri-agency funding to 2004-2006 levels, taking into consideration the significant increase in the number of research faculty and full-time graduate students in the system, as well as the impact of inflation," states the submission.

Data compiled by Universities Canada show the number of full-time graduate students doubled between 2000 and 2010 and is increasing at a 3% annual clip. A 15-year expenditure profile of granting council funding shows that the best years were between 2004 and 2007. Since then, increases barely covered the rate of inflation as reflected in changes in the Consumer Price Index. Previous studies have shown, however, that higher education inflation is at least 4% versus 2% in the CPI.

"This suggests further erosion in support for salaries, libraries and equipment," says Patry.

Another call for 40% in indirect costs

The situation is similar for research facilities, particularly money required to cover operating costs, also known as indirect costs. The CFI submission calls for a RFPF to boost the level of indirect costs from about 25% to 40% — a longstanding recommendation of the academic research community. Such a boost would require an additional $225 million on top of the $385 million annually allocated through the Tri-Agency's Research Support Fund (RSF). Distribution of funding through the proposed RFPF would be achieved based on the amount of previously funded CFI infrastructure.

"Institutions use research facilities to attract and retain research talent but there's a challenge in keeping the lights on," says Patry. "There's a $225-milllion funding gap right across the system."

Patry says that the RFPF may not be required if the government boosted the tri-agency RSF sufficiently to cover 40% of indirect costs. He notes, however, that accessing that level of support would remain challenging for regional and institutional facilities that are currently not covered by the CFI's Major Facilities Initiative.

"Universities want an increase in support for indirect costs and if the government increases the RSF, it's not as big a problem. If not, the Performance Fund would be a complement."

Big Science Roadmap

The CFI submission says Canada's major science facilities would be well served if Ottawa develops a Big Science Roadmap — an initiative started by the former Office of the National Science Advisor before it was shuttered by the Harper government (R$, January 21/08). It's also been nearly 10 years since the CFI partnered with the granting councils and National Research Council to advocate for sufficient and stable funding for major science facilities (R$, December 10/07).

The CFI submission says a roadmap would allow Canada "to move from an ad hoc way of supporting Big Science projects to one that is structured, merit-based and focused on national priorities".

"We need to have aspirational priorities in all disciplines (and) develop a seven to 20 or even 30-year window to inspire the community and provide structure," says Patry. "The new chief science officer could be given a mandate to develop a strategy for Big Science nationally and internationally. Or it could be led by ISED (Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the NRC, the granting councils or the CFI."

Funding flexibility

Perhaps most significantly, the CFI wants greater flexibility in how it allocates funding, in contrast to the current practice of a rigidly prescribed allocation the CFI is legally bound to follow each time new funding is awarded. As a contractor, CFI negotiates with government for each new tranche of funding, locking in the areas where that money can be spent. The situation became even more rigid when the last government changed the way in which it funds CFI, eliminating big year-end cheques in favour of just-in-time allocations.

"How we use the money is prescribed and allocated. The funds are binned," says Patry. "But what about emerging opportunities and our ability to partner with other agencies (such as the granting councils and Genome Canada)?"

Patry argues that greater flexibility would also allow CFI to participate more fully in international research projects such as those initiated under the European Union's Horizon 2020 initiative.

R$