The federal government is being encouraged to create new programs for college research and the indirect costs of federally funded research as part of a wide ranging set of recommendations, including a renewed call for a chief science advisor reporting directly to Parliament. The recommendations are contained in the latest report from the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (IST), which examines the allocation of research funds by the three granting agencies as well as the low success rates of small and regional universities.

Although the Committee concludes that the allocation of funding by the granting councils is “for the most part efficient”, the report is packed with a litany of perceived shortcomings and weaknesses that it contends must be addressed. Even the hallowed peer review system is questioned, although it rejects alternative mechanisms for judging research excellence and concludes that peer review remains “the most efficient method”.

The report is critical of the mechanisms by which the granting councils are able to target research in areas of national importance, with potentially negative consequences for the funding of emerging, high-risk and interdisciplinary research. It urges the adoption of a more formal, cross council mechanism such as that used in the UK. It also finds fault with the ability of the councils to direct research funds in areas deemed to be national priorities. It calls for a stronger S&T advisory framework and while supporting the proposed Canadian Academies of Sciences, it favours a more formalized mechanism that would “include a science advisory body and/or Chief Scientific Advisor reporting directly to Parliament”.

One official close to the process said the recommendation for a chief science advisor should have been coupled with the creation of a separate department for S&T. But the idea was abandoned for the same reasons it was rejected for inclusion in the 1996 S&T Strategy. “The problem could be solved in a second but there isn’t enough political will,” he says. “The Canadian Academies of Science is a good first step but it’s not enough.”

The IST Committee report is the first to be released under the chairmanship of Walt Lastewka, a Liberal MP from St Catharines and a long-standing advocate for increased spending on S&T. The report contains 11 recommendations (see chart) with the most urgent being the need to “immediately increase” funding to all three granting councils to boost success rates and grant levels.

“The Committee encourages the government to consider a doubling of agency funding levels by 2010, and ensure that annual increases to the agencies reflect this long-term goal,” states the report.

Special dispensation is also urged for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), due to its low level of funding relative to the other granting councils and the reliance on SSHRC support by the small universities. It called on Industry Canada as the organization in the best position to determine what the size of the increase should be. The recommendation was singled out in a dissenting report by the Canadian Alliance, which also criticized the fact that more than have of the recommendations call for increased spending with no specific figures or guidelines.

The Committee recommends that small universities should be the focus of separate, targeted programs through the granting councils to strengthen their research capacity. It notes that only two of the three granting councils have programs intended to assist small and regional institutions, and argues that new funding is required due to the constrained budgets of the councils.

The Committee’s call to establish a permanent fund for the indirect costs of research is not new, but it questions the “reverse income tax model” of allocation used for the $200-million pilot project. It urges the government to examine other models including that proposed by the Advisory Committee on S&T in its 2000 report.

The call for separate funding to support college research will no doubt cheer members of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC). The Committee supports the ACCC’s idea for “discrete funding programs for college researchers and students”. But it waffled on endorsing a specific program with a funding level of $600 million over five years until the ACCC consults further with the federal government.

R$