International review panel critical of CIHR management and flatlined funding levels

The Canadian Institute of Health Research’s recent efforts to reform its underfunded grants competition process was a failure. That’s the sobering conclusion from an international review panel tasked with studying and addressing the issue. The International Peer Review Expert Panel Report found that chronic underfunding and CIHR’s attempt to deal with the issue, combined with other problems, created a "perfect storm” that led to a crisis in confidence throughout the research community.

The report to CIHR’s governing council was prepared by a group of experts chaired by Sir Peter Gluckman, chief scientific advisor to the prime minister of New Zealand. Part of the mandated five year cycle of international reviews, the report was also informed by the crisis CIHR found itself in as it introduced a radically different peer review process that eliminated face-to-face meetings and was marred by delays and widespread opposition throughout much of the health research community.

The report’s recommendations range from more money for health research and the appointment of an international advisory board to help assist in the agency’s reform process to addressing the breakdown in trust between CIHR and the researcher community. The advisory board would also assist the governing council during the gap between the departure of CIHR president Dr Alain Beaudet at the end of March and the appointment of his successor, expected several months later.

When contacted by RE$EARCH MONEY, CIHR declined to comment on the report. It referred to its official response urging all Canadian health researchers to read the report and committing to “work with stakeholders to assess the Panel's recommendations and outline a path forward”.

The chain of events that culminated in the panel report began last June with an open letter to Health minister Jane Philpott calling the CIHR reforms a “failed experiment”. Penned by Dr Jim Woodgett, director of research at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute and signed by more than 1300 members of the health research community, the letter prompted Philpott to call an emergency working meeting July 13.

Woodgett’s response to the panel report and its recommendations is mixed. While he praises the panel members as “superb in science administration”, he was critical of the circumscribed nature of the questions the panel was asked to address. He was also frustrated that it did not recommend a return to face-to-face peer review, which he describes as the “gold standard” in many countries, including the US, UK and New Zealand.

“The panel was put together quickly and for CIHR it was a real defence action that was rushed through and tasked with a limited number of questions,” says Woodgett, who met with the panel in Ottawa in January and wrote its members individually. “The panel asked for a widened mandate which allowed for the first recommendation (increased funding) to be added to the charge.”

The panel said the current system “can be readily evolved to one that is world class and meets the mandate of the CIHR while rebuilding a sense of fairness and trust. It does not consider further retrenchment to the former system to be desirable”.

Woodgett disagrees. “The virtual nature of peer review is impossible but it’s among the core aspects of the reforms. People need to meet face-to-face... With virtual, there’s no central melting pot of ideas and errors don’t get questioned … This gives CIHR the option not to re-introduce face-to-face. It’s a fundamental flaw of the report.”

With the anticipated gap in permanent leadership at CIHR,  Woodgett says there’s an opportunity to make changes in CIHR management to improve lines of communication with researchers and stakeholders while injecting a much-needed science-based understanding into the agency.

“There needs to be a rebuilding of the structure of CIHR, including more science as its science capacity is underpowered,” he says. “CIHR needs a level of process understanding as a granting agency. Middle management should have science backgrounds because (during the implementation of the reforms) the leadership did not wish to listen … The change in government didn’t make much of a difference and with the hiatus of a president there’s concern a lot of labs will close.”

R$