[cmath] NSERC Survey

[Nassif Ghoussoub]

The case for the institutes was always argued within the submission  
of GSCs 336/337
to the re-allocation exercise. Yet, the institutes have always  
supported every aspect of
the mathematical sciences mentioned by Neal and more.

In any case, we do not agree with NSERC's description of "the math  
envelope" nor
we accept their proposed modus operandi for its functioning. A yes  
vote for option #2 is
however needed to avoid pushing the institutes into the de-facto  
unfair and unbalanced MFA situation
  described by Ivar below. It  is only a first step towards  
negotiating a proper empowerment
  of the --historically inclusive-- Canadian mathematical science  
community.

Nassif

On Jun 23, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Neal Madras wrote:

> 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/
>>
>>
>
>
>

   ********************************************************
Nassif Ghoussoub, FRSC
Scientific Director, Banff International Research Station
Distinguished University Scholar, University of British Columbia
Adjunct Professor, University of Alberta
http://www.pims.math.ca/~nassif/