Having been so public with the results of my Discovery Grant proposal (see below), I feel an obligation to the scientific community to update my story. NSERC has been responsive to my situation, and first changed the duration of my grant to one year, from five years. I was told that there was an executive review of some grantees that had a large change in their grant award, and that although my case did not fit within the parameters of the executive review, it was later decided that to use the same mechanism for my case.

Several days later I was informed that grantees who have a successful appeal would be awarded a one year grant at their previous grant level.

This turn of events certainly improves my personal situation, and it helps to see NSERC responding to concerns raised about some outcomes of the new procedures.

For those of you who experienced your own disappointments, I continue to feel strongly that it is important to send feedback to NSERC by any means possible, including appeals. NSERC has posted a lot of statistics on this year's competition on their web page, which no doubt will be pored over in the months to come. There are obviously strengths and weaknesses in any system of evaluation, and it will take some time before we know whether the new system represents an improvement. In the meantime, the more discussion and feedback that circulates through the scientific community, the better.

First Post: April 28, 2009

As news about the results of this year's discovery grant competition trickle out, the list of alarming stories seems to grow. Here is my story.

My DG grant was cut this year from $48,000 to $25,000. Grants in statistics tend to be low, and our GSC (14) is perpetually short of money. My grant of $48k was the largest among those re-applying this year, and among the top 5 or so in the country. The last few years have seen most of the top grants cut to help the pressure on junior people who need to move up through the system. So I expected to see a decrease in my grant.

But, I didn't expect to be knee-capped. This is just $1k short of the maximum cut allowed (50%).

My first reactions were deeply personal: I assumed that my standing, my research, and my training of HQP had been found wanting, I assumed that this was probably a correct judgment, and I started asking myself whether it was time to think about retiring. I asked myself why a group of my peers felt that it was necessary to deliver such a blow, even if I was judged to be slipping. I was embarrassed to tell even my closest friends what had happened.

But wait! The referees' reports are quite positive! I looked at my proposal again: it was not bad! I had a long list of HQP! I had won a national and an international award! In fact, my proposal, my record of publication, training and achievement are very similar to past competitions.

This year, as we all know, NSERC instituted a completely different mechanism for determining grant amounts. They will of course be monitoring the situation, and assessing what worked and what didn't. On their web page we read:

The emphasis on quality assessment under the new common rating system has achieved the desired objectives. It preserves continuity of funding for the most productive researchers who maintain a strong record of contributions to research and training. It also permits a more rapid ramp up of funding for applicants with superior accomplishments and research plans, no matter their history in the system.

Sounds admirable. But is it working?

We won't know unless we share our stories. And NSERC won't know unless it hears from us. Don't hide in your office feeling that you've done something wrong. If there is any doubt in your mind about the adequacy of the review process and the outcome for your Discovery Grant, submit an appeal. And share your story.

For ongoing discussions about the current state of science funding in Canada, go to The Researchers Forum.