GSC Structure Review

1. GSC Structure Review May 2007

2. Context • Current GSC structure reflects the traditional disciplines that existed when NSERC was created • But the makeup of the committees has evolved since then • Significant ongoing change within research areas • Many interesting and exciting research areas are at the periphery of, or cross-over, traditional disciplines • Are the GSC names barriers to effective communication to our stakeholders? • NSERC is perceived as “staid and set in the past”

3. Context • Over the next decade, we expect the number of NSE researchers will grow from 10,000 to 13-14,000 • The number of GSCs is continually increasing as committees split to manage the workload • Increasing specialization • Many more boundaries between GSCs • Increasing risk that applications will fall between the cracks • Is there a better way?

4. Previous Feedback – Disciplinary Evolution and Interdisciplinary Research • GSCs can become silos with hardening categories • Core vs fringe • Multiple cores with different financial needs • Some new “hot” areas were/are/will be short-lived; others have long-lasting impact • Fundamental core disciplines evolve much more slowly • Interdisciplinary GSC is working well • However, it may be more “extra-disciplinary with respect to disciplinary GSCs” than “interdisciplinary”

5. Previous Feedback – Workload • Several GSCs are already at or very close to their “breaking point” • GSCs face split with great reluctance • Claim that peer review process works best when GSC deals with wider range of topics • i.e. options should promote broad rather than narrow focus (e.g. Evolution & Ecology “Conference” Model) • Concern that funding levels and success rates will diverge

6. Previous Feedback – General Comments • NSERC should reflect on trends to anticipate stresses on the GSCs • Clear GSC “program descriptions” would be helpful • Some researchers embrace a change while others don’t see the need for it

7. Think about it this way: “If NSERC were just starting now, what process should it adopt to fund researchers under the Discovery Grants program?”

8. Additional comments • The current system has worked well in the past, but it needs to evolve • Doing things well is more important than doing things quickly • To do things well, we need to interact with the communities that the system is designed to serve • The Advisory Committee will provide external oversight of the GSC Structure Review Project

9. Advisory Committee Adel Sedra (Chair) Dean of Engineering, University of Waterloo Elizabeth Cannon Dean of Engineering, University of Calgary Nils Petersen Director General, NINT, Edmonton Susan Pfeiffer Dean of Graduate Studies, University of Toronto Mario Pinto Vice President-Research, Simon Fraser University Gary Slater Dean of Graduate Studies, University of Ottawa Patrick Desjardins Professor, Canada Research Chair, École Polytechnique Carolyn Watters Dean of Graduate Studies, Dalhousie University Nick Cercone Dean of Science and Engineering, York University Warwick Vincent Professor, Canada Research Chair, Université Laval; NSERC Committee on Grants & Scholarships Nancy Van Wagoner Associate VP Research, Thompson Rivers University Peter March Director, Mathematics Division, NSF Mark Bisby Previous VP Research, CIHR Michael Gibbons, MBE Sussex University; Previous Secretary General, Association of Commonwealth Universities

10. Advisory Committee Mandate (summary) To advise NSERC senior management on: • An appropriate GSC structure that is forward-looking • Possible new operational procedures of the GSCs • Management of the Review Project • Consultation process • Appropriate transition road map • Mechanisms and processes to clearly demonstrate the value of funding research in the natural sciences and engineering

11. Benchmarking to Date… • International • NSF (U.S.) • European Research Council • U.K. Research Councils (e.g. NERC) • National • Le Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies • Alberta Ingenuity Fund

12. Next Steps • Meet with Advisory Committee every few months • Consult broadly (spring/summer 2007) • VPs research, councils of deans, groups of department chairs • Scientific societies [AGMs where possible] • SSHRC and CIHR • Industry associations • Scientific directors of NCEs? • Science-based departments and agencies? • National and international benchmarking • What other fora should we consult and how best to reach them?

13. Next Steps (cont.) • Synthesize all input and develop options • Consult on options (fall 2007) • Develop proposed structure (fall/winter 2007) • Develop implementation road map (fall/winter 2007) • Consult on proposed structure • Present final recommendations to Committee on Grants & Scholarships (June 2008) • Implement (as of 2009 competition)

14. Topics for Discussion • How well does the current GSC structure serve your community or discipline? • Are there specific current research areas that aren’t handled well by the current system, e.g. interdisciplinary work, or inter-council proposals? • Do you see emerging research areas that will stretch the current system, either in terms of workload or because the areas will be outside the mainstream of the existing GSCs?

15. Topics for Discussion (cont.) • What are the areas of intersection, overlap or complementarity with other disciplines or GSCs?  • How important is the sense of “home” for your discipline within the GSC structure, and could this be provided by a GSC that is theme-based rather than discipline-based (e.g. environment)? • What is your vision of the ideal system for the Discovery Grants program?

16. Further input welcome… A new interactive Web site will be available soon (check NSERC site). Meanwhile, send your comments to: andrew.woodsworth@nserc.ca Tel.: 250-686-7960