[cmath] re: NSERC Survey

[Nassif Ghoussoub]

Please distribute to our colleagues in the Canadian mathematical science 
community
__________________________________________________________________

Dear Colleagues,

As you are aware, there are significant changes at NSERC starting with 
last year's cancellation of the communities driven re-allocation exercise 
between the Grant Selection Committees (GSCs) and replacing it with a new 
re-allocation driven by reportedly "more measurable criteria" such as 
discipline dynamics (the variation over time in the number of researchers 
applying for funding in a given discipline) and cost of research. These 
changes also led NSERC staff to devise new plans for reviewing and funding 
our institutes. The mathematics community responded by forming an ad-hoc 
Math/NSERC liaison committee to address these issues. Two weeks ago NSERC 
sent all grantees from GSC336/337 a survey asking us to choose between two 
options for funding Canadian research in the mathematical sciences.

While we appreciate NSERC's efforts in trying to address the concerns of 
our community, I would like to point out that
neither the consultative process nor the content of the survey has been 
adequate or satisfactory (See below).  The core of our position all along 
has been that the cancellation of the re-allocations exercise, has 
eliminated the only avenue for scientific communities to communicate their 
global visions and aspirations to NSERC's management. Neither a proposal 
to separate the institutes from their communities nor one which creates a 
handcuffed "mathematics envelope" with no real possibility for global 
leadership and coordinated vision are steps in the direction of bridging 
the disconnect between NSERC and the scientific communities it serves.

  This debate  should and will be happening at a different level and ought 
to involve all scientific communities. It should address issues of whether 
NSERC can still afford its current model of not having scientific 
leadership more closely involved in the envisioning process, long term 
planning and prioritization exercises for Canada's future in R&D.  Various 
forms of this model has been adopted by the NSF, the CNRS and more 
recently the CIHR, and it calls for the country's senior scientists to 
take the lead in most matters concerning research granting policies and 
not only through the limiting perspective of project-based peer review 
processes.

As to the survey, I believe that neither option --as stated-- addresses 
the concerns of our community. I am calling for the total rejection of the 
proposed MFA/MRS option (#1) for the institutes for reasons outlined 
below. I am however  calling for the support of option (#2) of a 
community-steered envelope, but with the caveat that NSERC should get back 
to the negotiating table so as to restructure this model in a spirit of 
empowering --as opposed to handcuffing-- its communities.  Statements to 
that effect can only clarify our vote for option #2 and should be sent 
directly to NSERC <Serge.Villemure at nserc.ca>.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

1. THE CONSULTATIVE PROCESS:

The modus operandi of the two proposed options were devised by NSERC's 
staff. From the start, they preferred the option of placing the institutes 
in a revised MFA programme. While they had exercised a certain level of 
flexibility on some of the working details concerning that option (#1), 
none whatsoever was shown towards making the option (#2) of a 
community-steered envelope feasible and effective.

2.  THE PROPOSED MFA/MRS OPTION FOR THE INSTITUTES--Option #1:

Both the criteria and the funding mechanisms of the MFA/MRS option are 
simply not favorable neither to the institutes nor to the GSCs. It is our 
position that the re-allocations criteria reflecting "discipline dynamics 
and the cost of research" should take into consideration the resources 
needed by the Math Institutes in order to continue supporting the world 
class research capacity they are providing.  Plus, there is no point in 
being subtle here: regardless of how sweetened the MFA-like option was 
made for the institutes directors, it is still a fact that our institutes 
and our research station are getting into a competition where they will 
bring almost  $3.7 million to the table while competing initiatives are 
starting with no prior NSERC funding. A good portion of the institute 
funding came through reallocations to the Mathematical community and so 
should be protected or at least subjected to a fair competition. NSERC has 
made it clear that without additional government funding,  no new 
resources will be available for the MRS programme.  On one hand, we see 
the CFI (for one) spawning a herd of applicants looking to the MRS  for 
funds to manage their newly acquired infrastructure. On the other,  a 
substantial part of the programme's budget is off-limit as it is tied-up 
with existing --government directed-- large projects which will not 
effectively be part of the MRS competition.  This is simply not 
acceptable.

The survey is also happening at the same time,  and independently of, the 
workings of an NSERC's special task force to develop an international 
strategy (The "NSERC Advisory Committee on International strategy").  BIRS 
(and to a certain extent the 3 math institutes) ought to be an integral 
part --and the defining part--  of that nascent international programme. 
This option does not address the leading role that our community has 
exercised in this direction over the last few years. It does not provide 
our community with the framework and the incentive to continue to lead the 
way for Canada.


3.  THE ENVELOPE OPTION AS PROPOSED--Option #2:

Our  support for the principle of an empowering "envelope option" was 
motivated by an attempt to remedy (partially) the total disconnect between 
NSERC and the scientific communities created by the elimination of 
communities driven re-allocation process. The  modus operandi that NSERC 
is unfortunately imposing for its version of this option is destined to 
prevent any global and coordinated vision by our community and those in 
closely related disciplines.   NSERC has  stripped the  international 
steering committee --that we had proposed-- from all crucial decisions, 
including budget transfers between initiatives within the envelope, but 
also from any strategic leadership or any access to other NSERC programmes 
(current, nascent or forthcoming). By doing so, they are effectively 
removing any possibility for the community  to have a more global and 
integrated vision, and to exercise the option of developing innovative 
national and international initiatives that can leverage Canada's 
financial and intellectual resources with provincial and international 
ones. Please join us in supporting the principle of such an option but 
with the understanding that NSERC has to remove all the artificial hurdles 
to its functioning in a feasible and effective way.


Nassif Ghoussoub, FRSC
Distinguished University Scholar, University of British Columbia
Adjunct Professor, University of Alberta