Dr. Nicole Tomczak-Jaegermann
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Faculty of Science
University of Alberta
632 Central Academic Building
Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2G1
Dear Dr. Tomczak-Jaegermann,
Thank you for your letter of October 10, 1995, expressing
your views on the adjudication of applications involving
mathematics and statistics in the Collaborative Project Grants (CPG)
program. As a participant in this process, we value your
perspective, and that of your colleagues.
The focus of the CPG program this year was on
interdisciplinary research projects, and the panels were
constituted with this in mind. Obviously interdisciplinary panels are
not going to have the depth of expertise that discipline committees
like the GSCs will have. However, they will have much greater breadth
of expertise. Expert opinion is provided by referees, and staff went
to great lengths this year to ensure that referee reports were
received for all applications, and most had 2-4 reports.
In such a system, it is incumbent on applicants to convince
people outside their own discipline as well as inside that
their proposal is worthy of support. Interdisciplinary panels are
widely used by funding bodies such as FCAR, NSF, SERC and NSERC (in
Strategic Grants, CSP, NCE, UI and others). I have seen no evidence
that they are inherently unfair. Furthermore, I believe
Mathematicians are able to compete just as effectively as researchers
from other disciplines within the CPG program. For example, last
year, the success rate for Applicants from mathematics and statistics
was 8.2% (compared to an average of 11%), and the participation rate
in funded proposals (including applicants and co-applicants from
mathematics and statistics) was 15.6% (compared to an average of
12%). Statistics are not yet available for the current competition,
but one proposal that was predominantly mathematics was funded by
your panel.
You refer to an application that you found particularly
troubling. The deliberations of the panel on a specific case
are confidential, as they must be, and I would not want to breach
this stricture in any way (specific or implied). Let me say that I am
assured both by the Director of the CPG program, and the Program
officer (both of whom were present) that NSERC policies were strictly
followed during discussion of the application to which I suspect you
are referring. This would appear to be one case where the applicants
were unable to convince the panel as a whole of the merits of the
proposal. I believe this was due to deficiencies of the proposal
rather than the process.
Members from different disciplines, while not being
advocates, certainly do provide the panels with the context
of the research and collaborative environments within their
disciplines, especially where these are different from other
disciplines. Panels are expected to apply the criteria in a way that
is sensitive, and responsive to these differences. But a criterion of
the CPG program is: the added value associated with CPG funding. The
program is intended to provide resources to carry out specific
projects requiring collaboration. The informal interactive (second)
type of collaboration referred to in your letter (which I believe is
an important activity in many, if not all disciplines) does not
necessarily need CPG funding to occur.
You have placed a great deal of emphasis, in your letter, on
two criteria: Quality of the applicants; and quality of the
application. The other three criteria: Nature and extent of
collaboration and its interdisciplinarity; training of highly
qualified personnel; and the added value associated with CPG funding
are also to be considered. The onus is on the applicants to make the
case that their project is meritorious under all of these criteria.
This is much more than "careful packaging". This is the information
needed by the panel members to make their decisions.
As you know, the Strategy Implementation Task Force is
recommending that the CPG program be cancelled, and that
collaboration be supported by different mechanisms. If this
recommendation is accepted by Council, and the program is cancelled,
I do not believe it is due to criticisms such as those discussed in
your letter. Rather it is due to the overall budgetary situation and
the "cost-benefit" of an additional program with a relatively low
success rate. I personally believe that the program has played an
important role in providing financial resources for exciting
collaborative research projects. This hypothesis can, and will be
tested by a review of the completed projects in due course.
Finally, I would like to thank you for your participation in
the CPG panel. I recognise that you, and the other members
have worked conscientiously to make fair and impartial judgements.
The workload has been heavy, and members' efforts have not always
been appreciated by their colleagues. Although we may disagree about
a number of things, I am sure we agree that the funding of excellent
research is vital to the future of Canada. I believe that CPG panel
members can be proud of the role they played in this process.
Yours Sincerely,
Nigel Lloyd
cc: CPG Panel Members
Math-NSERC Liaison Committee Members