Science on a Treadmill

by Jasmine Pui, BSc (Honours), Neuroscience, University of Alberta

As human beings, we’d like to think that we’re flexible and open to new ideas. While we state that open-mindedness is one of the attributes which define us, science research has reached a critical stage in stagnation. The problem is largely a result of continued government grants for science and medical research.

There are three major federal grant agencies: the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Medical Research Council (MRC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). This article will focus on NSERC, the largest of the three agencies. The rationale that governments must fund science is based on two principles: that without government funds, basic research and any economic benefits to be reaped would be lost, and without these benefits, the international standing of Canada in a knowledge-based economy would decline.

In January 1998, the Canadian government announced that its spending on Science and Technology (S&T) activities over the past four years had decreased by 12 percent.¹ The general view held is that there is chronic underfunding of basic research, and the announcement was greeted with protests. NSERC, MRC, and SSHRC make crucial decisions as to which grant competitors obtain funding, and the current system allows for a substantial inherent bias in the selection process. It is unclear what the determining factors are for the differing amounts of the awards handed out, since NSERC does not publicly disclose the reasons for its rejection or approval of grant applications through annual reports. Funds are inevitably limited, and not all applicants can be awarded money. As a result, NSERC specifically instructs its grant selection committees to reject a high percentage of proposals, in the attempt to give the impression that there is competition among great scientific ideas for grants. This hardly signifies excellence in research, which is contrary to one of the founding mandates for NSERC.

In 1997, there were 192 successful applicants for NSERC grants in Molecular and Developmental Genetics.² The amounts ranged from $14,500 to $81,300 for research grants. The ideas for which the grants were given are neither novel nor memorable. Proposals such as “Regulation of Troponin C gene expression” and “Molecular analysis of protein-protein interactions in the isoleucine-valine biosynthetic pathway of Arabidopsis” are ideas and concepts established in decades past. Genetic sequencing and analysis have not changed significantly in the last 40 years, and these two successful grant applicants are continuing such stagnation. From the 1997 research grant application results for molecular and developmental genetics, we observe that the driving force behind basic research in Canada is not scientific innovation or risk-taking, but a desperate search for grants. NSERC and other grant agencies operate on the basis that they will fund conservative proposals and easily publishable research objectives. However, in order for Canadian research to obtain and maintain an international standing, intellectual risks must be taken. The grant application process from Canada’s leading grant agency is hindering the research process instead of prompting it.

Scientists have not become less creative; they’ve merely become less willing to express their new ideas in a funding system that prefers research to be conducted along established lines. While it is a laudable goal for Canada to progress in excellent research, the goal will not be achieved from a public clamouring for larger budgets of funding institutions such as NSERC. The cuts made so far are the first step in improving the level of integrity of research and stopping the waste of taxpayer dollars. Today, grant recipients beget more grants, while other scientists are told that “not everybody can be funded any more”.³ This conflicts with the fact that, at the University of Alberta, professors who have NSERC grants often hire summer research students by applying for additional grants from the Alberta Heritage Medical Research Council (AHMRC).

Grant agencies have misled the public, and even scientists, to believe that more money for research from Canadians will mean more and better internationally-recognized research. A common argument spouted by the government is that scientists must receive practical training in their related fields of study in post-secondary institutions. Currently, the system is also teaching scientists to run a treadmill called “grantsmanship.” The overall decrease in S&T spending announced by the government was a step in the right direction. Academic research must be funded, but some argue that research funded by companies, such as pharmaceutical companies, is inherently biased.¹

However, government funded research in Canada is also biased. It perpetuates the myth of funding solid research when scientists submit proposals written by a moth-eaten formula, only to be arbitrarily thrown into the “successful” and “non-successful” piles by the NSERC grant application committee.²

Such bias is usually shrouded from the public view. However, one particular case of NSERC bias was exposed to public scrutiny, if only for a short while. The case of Dr. K.K. Tan vs. NSERC compelled NSERC to respond in a public arena, instead of ignoring or sidestepping the issues. After repeated protests and proposals for reform sent to NSERC, a Federal Court in Toronto gave the Canadian Association for Responsible Research Funding (CARRF) permission to provide supporting documents to objectively investigate any bias in the grant peer-review system.

In the spring of 1993, Kok-Keong Tan, a faculty member of the Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computing Science at Dalhousie University hired a lawyer to take NSERC to court in the hopes of reversing the NSERC decision to reduce a justified request for funding. Applying for a five-year grant for $285,000, Tan received a three-year grant for $18,000. His appeal to NSERC was refused, and prompted his decision to take an unprecedented stand for fairness in grant agencies.

Dr. Tan disagreed with the conflicting judgements of three referees on the panel that caused the grant reduction. One of the referees did not approve of the high frequency of publication in reputable journals and a further report suggested that Tan was taking credit that belonged to his graduate students. Tan opposed these reasons for the reduction in funding, asserting that “his published work met the strict criteria concerning originality and completeness.”³ The high quality of research did not appear to be addressed at all by the referees. Tan, who has himself been a referee for NSERC, asserts that when there is a conflict of interest or bias, the confidentiality of referee’s identities allows unfair judging to occur.⁴ While appeals to NSERC are frequent, few researchers can afford the legal expenses which Dr. Tan has incurred.

As it stands, grant agencies create jobs for researchers and technicians, which occasionally result in spin-off companies, in turn creating jobs. Biochem Pharma and SYNSORB Biotech Inc. are two such companies. When the funding that supports research is withdrawn, the only skills that new researchers can place on their curricula vitae are their respective abilities to run the grant treadmill, and Canada is worse off than it previously was. Instead of shifting funds to one segment of society from another, the best way to encourage internationally-renowned science is to leave scientists to account for their research. Instead of perpetuating the illusion that scientists require public aid, let scientists earn every penny.

Fighting inertia and the disintegration of science is an uphill battle. It’s far easier to lose integrity and be comfortable. However, the quantity and quality of true greatness in science and novel thought has declined, and the “open-minded” public has been placed in a pigeon hole, thinking that scientists must be propped up by government agencies. We would better serve Canada’s future by changing the nature of government support for science research instead of sustaining it.

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.