[cmath] NSERC Survey

[Neal Madras]

Dear Ivar,

     I am puzzled about the relation between the institutes and
the GSC's under these models.  Only the grantees from GSC's 336 and
337 have been polled by NSERC.  But this excludes many
mathematicians and mathematical scientists.  Most
statisticians and probabilists are with GSC 14, and
many applied mathematicians go to other disciplinary GSC's, including
computer science, physics, biology, and engineering,
as well as the Interdisciplinary GSC.

If the budgets of the Institutes are tied to the "Math Community"
as represented by GSC's 336 and 337, then what are the implications
for Institute activities that extend into the "mathematical sciences",
including statistics, theoretical computer science, operations
research, and mathematical modelling?  If Institute funding is in
the same envelope as 336/337 funding, then I worry that there
would be pressure from 336/337 for the Institutes to have fewer
activities that do not primarily benefit 336/337 researchers.


Neal Madras (GSC 14)
Chair, Department of Mathematics and Statistics
York University
4700 Keele Street
Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3  Canada
(416) 736-5250 ext. 22555         fax: (416) 736-5757
madras at mathstat.yorku.ca


On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, Ivar Ekeland wrote:

> Dear colleagues
>
> I have been asked what is the PIMS position on the NSERC survey. Here is
> the situation as we see it:
>
> - wherever they go, be it in a common envelope for mathematics (option
> #2) or in a revamped MFA programs with experimental sciences (option
> #1), the three mathematics institutes will bring in their own money.
>
> - the question then is: once the institutes money is in a common pot,
> how is it redistributed ?
>
> In the case of the envelope, which would be administered by
> mathematicians, that money would stay within mathematics, and the
> community should be able to handle it in any way it wishes. I agree with
> Nassif's position that, as NSERC has structured it now, the envelope
> option does not empower the mathematical community in that respect, and
> that this should be changed.
>
> In the case of a revamped MFA, it would be a free-for-all between
> disciplines, with the mathematicians in a small minority, but holding a
> disproportionate share of the pot. I cannot conceive that we would turn
> out to be the winners in that particular game, and any money lost in
> that fight would go to other disciplines.
>
> So I think that the envelope, option #2, is our best bet. Mathematicians
> have been successful in Canada because they have stuck together and
> developed long-term vision. The envelope concept, if suitably adjusted,
> may become an institutionalized way of doing just that
>
> --
> Ivar Ekeland
> Canada Research Chair in Mathematical Economics
> University of British Columbia
> http://www.pims.math.ca/~ekeland/
>