CCCESD Carleton University, Ottawa November 20, 2009

2. CCCESDCarleton University, OttawaNovember 20, 2009 Dave Bowen Team Leader Environmental Sciences Discovery Grants NSERC

3. Outline • 2009 Budget • 2009 Discovery Grants Competition • Next Steps – Discovery Grants • Other programs

4. Federal Budget 2009 S&T expenditures = $5.1 billion including: • Investments in Knowledge Infrastructure • University / College infrastructure - $2 billion / 2 yrs • Canada Foundation for Innovation - $750 million • Institute for Quantum Computing - $50 million / 2 yrs • Federal laboratories infrastructure - $250 million / 2 yrs • Arctic Research Infrastructure - $85 million / 2 yrs • Canada Health Infoway - $500 million • Broadband implementation strategy - $225 million

5. Federal Budget 2009 S&T Expenditures Further Developing a Highly Skilled Workforce • Canada Graduate Scholarship Temporary Increase • $87.5 million / 3 yrs NSERC – $35 million | CIHR - $35 million | SSHRC – $17.5 million • Industrial R&D Internships - $ 3.5 million / 2 yrs Helping Small and Medium Sized Companies Innovate • Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) – $200 million / 2 yrs A More Sustainable Environment • Clean Energy Technologies $ 1 billion / 5 yrs • Atomic Energy of Canada - $351 million

6. Strategic Review • Annual process – each year ¼ of federal organizations are involved • In 2008, 21 federal organizations participated • Principles: • Need and impact of program on the community it serves. • Federal role and fit to NSERC’s mandate. • Alignment with the government’s S&T strategy. • Value for money (efficiency and effectiveness), management performance and accountability. • Results announced in Budget 2009

7. Strategic Review: Outcome for NSERC • Programs to be terminated: • Centres Research in Youth, Science Teaching and Learning (CRYSTAL) • University Faculty Awards (UFA) • Research Capacity Development (RCD) program • Special Research Opportunity (SRO) program • Intellectual Property Mobilization (IPM) program • Programs to be reduced: • Postgraduate Scholarships program – Optional 2nd year of masters’ level support • Major Resources Support (MRS) program • Indirect Costs Program

8. 2009 Discovery Grants Competition “Delivering on NSERC’s Commitment to Excellence”

9. Why were improvements made? • Excellence of Discovery Grants Program validated in two major independent reviews • Strong support for existing program criteria to measure excellence • Recommendations for enhancement: • new rating principles and measures to allow the peer review system to respond more dynamically to applicants’ performance • new committee structure to give all applicants a higher quality, more focused, review (in 2010)

10. Consultations and decisions • (2008) Extensive consultations with key stakeholders to validate the new review process and committee structure • (2008) Changes endorsed by NSERC’s Council and its Standing Committee on Grants and Scholarships • (2009) New rating principles and measures implemented in the 2009 Discovery Grants Competition

11. Evaluation principles introduced • Two-step process separating merit review and funding recommendations • Merit assessment based on the same criteria as in the past • Funding recommendations ─ comparable funding for those with similar overall ratings within a committee • Greater consistency in process from committee to committee and competition to competition

12. Enhanced two-step review process

13. All program strengths retained • The merit evaluation criteria are unchanged • Supports a program of research, giving researcher freedom to pursue most promising directions • Continuity of funding for highest performers • Continued commitment to support meritorious early-career researchers • Overall program budget is stable

14. Implementation • The introduction of the new review process went smoothly • Most review committee members liked the new rating approach. They said it was fair and allowed them to spend more time focusing on the scientific content of the applications

15. Impacts achieved • A more dynamic system • Continuity of funding for researchers with strong contributions to research and training and a strong research proposal • Opportunity for significant funding increases for those with superior contributions and research plans, no matter their history in the program

16. Comparing 2009 and 2008 CompetitionsChange in Grant Amount 2009 2008

17. Overall Comparative Statistics

19. 2009 Discovery Grant Results – Earth Sciences

21. 2009 Research Tools and Instruments (RTI)

22. The view from NSERC… “At NSERC, we fuel the advancement of knowledge in science and engineering and ensure that Canadian scientists and engineers are leaders and key players in a global knowledge community.” Suzanne Fortier, President, NSERC

23. What others say… • “Canada exists for the long term. NSERC has the inspiring purpose of planning for that long term. It does so through its understanding that the power of science lies in its ability to surprise, and that the key to releasing that power is to support the best of our scientists as they venture into the unknown. With this as its central tenet, NSERC will enjoy the cooperation and support of the nation’s scientific community. Long may it flourish.” -Dr. John Polanyi, U of T • “A commitment to excellence means accepting the challenge of continuous improvement by raising the bar. Implementing these changes will raise the bar.” -Peter Nicholson, President, Council of Canadian Academies • "I  commend NSERC for accepting the recommendations of the external review panels, which confirmed the extremely high value of the Discovery Grants Program while offering direction on how to further strengthen excellence and support Canada’s most productive researchers.“ -Dr. James Blatz, Associate Head of Engineering – U of Manitoba

24. Next Steps – Discovery Grants Conference Model

25. Towards the future • For the 2010 competition, NSERC has introduced the second major enhancement: the new system of Conference Review. It replaces the current Grant Selection Committees, while retaining their positive features.

26. Conference Model - Definition • Is similar to a scientific conference, where several sessions are occurring in parallel streams. • The conference model has been implemented by four Grant Selection Committees (GSCs) – four years for one GSC – with two streams running in parallel. • The proposed concept expands the model to three, or four, or five streams. • Group members meet in various combinations to assess applications in specific research topics. • Each stream involves six to nine members.

27. Conference Model - Definition (con’t) • Group members are assigned to various sections on the basis of the match between members’ expertise and the subject matter or research topic. • Some sections may be at the interface between two Evaluation Groups and reviewed by an appropriate combination of members from both Groups. • The 28 current GSCs are replaced by 12 Groups (approximately 30 to 35 members).

28. GROUP A Group Chair ~ 30 members 4 Section Chairs GROUP B Group Chair ~35 members 4 Section Chairs GROUP C Group Chair ~25 members 3 Section Chairs Section C1-1 Research Topics C1 and B5 Section B1-1 Research Topic B1 Section C3-1 Research Topic C4 Section A1-1 Research Topic A1 Section A3-1 Research Topic A5 Section A4-1 Research Topics A7 and A8 Section B3-1 Research Topic B4 Section B4-1 Research Topics B2 and B6 Section B2 Research Topic B3 Section C2 Research Topic C3 Section A2 Research Topic A3 Section C1-2 Research Topic C2 Section A1-2 Research Topics A2 and A4 Section C3-2 Research Topics C5 and A5 Section A3-2 Research Topic A6 Section A4-2 Research Topics A9 and B5 Section B3-2 Research Topics B1 and B5 Section B4-2 Research Topics B7 and C6 Section B1-2 Research Topics B2 and A10 How does the Conference Model work?

29. Advantages of Conference Model • Provides a system with increased flexibility to ensure that applications have the best possible review; • Eliminates the need for consultation process between two GSCs – such applications are reviewed by a joint section and benefit from a larger pool of expertise than in the current system; • Proposals would be discussed by smaller numbers of members • reduction of the number of readers and, therefore, a reduction in workload; and • Enables "traditional" disciplines or well-defined areas to remain together.

30. New Evaluation Groups • Genes, Cells and Molecules • Biological Systems and Functions • Evolution andEcology • Chemistry • Physics • Geosciences • Computer Science • Mathematics and Statistics • Civil, Industrial and Systems Engineering • Electrical and Computer Engineering • Material and Chemical Engineering • Mechanical Engineering

31. Petrology & Mineralogy (6) Sedimentology & Stratigraphy (12) Paleontology & Paleobiology (6) Geophysics (13) Economic Geology (3) Tectonics & Structural Geology (13) Geochemistry & Geochronology (19) Volcanology (2) Planetary Sciences (3) Surface Processes (9) Paleo-environmental Sciences (13) Biogeosciences (15) Global Geological Processes (1) Atmospheric Sciences (22) Hydrology (22) Oceanography (9) Soil Sciences (15) Geomatics & Earth Systems Observations (20) Cryology (3) TOTAL 2010 (206 apps.) Geosciences Research Topics