Lawson responds to Canada’s fundamental science review

The Government of Canada recently launched an independent review of federal funding for fundamental science.

“The review will assess the program machinery that is currently in place to support science and scientists in Canada. The scope of the review includes the three granting councils along with certain federally funded organizations such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation,” stated The Honourable Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science. “This work will be a core component of the Government’s Innovation Agenda as science and research are key to Canada’s innovation and economic objectives.”

The review is being led by a panel of distinguished research leaders and innovators, chaired by Dr. David Naylor, President Emeritus and Professor of Medicine, University of Toronto. This independent and non-partisan body for the Fundamental Science Review will provide the Minister with non-binding advice and recommendations on the most significant issues associated with the current system of federal support for investigator-led science. 

The panel is seeking input from the research community and Canadians on how to optimize support for fundamental science. In response, Lawson’s Research Executive Committee has prepared a written commentary on the country’s research system. 

“We are answering a call for evidence and input on what works, what doesn’t work, why not and alternate options,” says Dr. David Hill, Lawson Scientific Director. “Most of the issues addressed have to do with strategic coordination, strategic investment and strategic policy.”  

Dr. Hill explains that relative to competitor nations, there has been a serious lack of financial investment into fundamental science through all three federal research councils relative to Canada’s potential for global scientific performance and economic benefits. 

“A particular victim of under-investment has been CIHR pillars 3 and 4 whereby fundamental research findings at a clinical or pre-clinical level cannot be effectively tested and translated within our health systems or applied to population health,” states Dr. Hill. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research pillars 3 and 4 represent health systems and services and the social, cultural and environmental factors that affect the health of populations. 

There has been no overall fundamental science strategic plan that crosses the federal research councils and other funding agencies across the country. This lack of central vision harms not only the strategic direction of science and an ability to rapidly change in an evolving world, but also the overall quality of training for our present cohort of scientists and those of tomorrow, and their access to state-of-the-art equipment. Moreover, there is a lack of effective research partnership programs where private sector companies can co-fund to advance fundamental science. 

See the full letter that has been submitted to the panel on behalf of the institute. 

The panel is surveying international best practices for funding science and examining whether emerging researchers face barriers that prevent them from achieving career goals. It will look at what must be done to address these barriers and what more can be done to encourage Canada’s scientists to take on bold new research challenges. 

Individual researchers are also being called upon to provide input. A set of targeted questions have been developed to gain further insight on specific topics and inform the recommendations. All Lawson researchers are invited to provide their thoughts about the funding process available to Canadian investigators, including peer-review processes, national and international collaborations, and multidisciplinary research, as well as coordination between the programs being provided by the granting councils and other funding organizations. 

Visit the website to find out more about how to submit responses by Sept. 30. 

“This is an opportunity to send a strong, balanced message to the review panels,” says Dr. Hill. “It is safe to say the future of Canadian health research hangs in the balance.”