Co-Funding in Canada: Another View

Abstract

The letter “Problems with co-funding in Canada” by M. Tyers et al. (24 June, p. [1867][1]) gives a misleading and inaccurate picture of recent increases in federal research funding. The Letter leaves the distinct impression that Canadian scientific excellence is being compromised by an overemphasis on short-term industrial and commercial interests. Statements such as “[m]uch of this renewed commitment to research… is in the form of “co-funded” programs…” and “co-funding is often biased against fundamental research…” not only belie the facts but do a tremendous disservice to a range of innovative Canadian programs that have changed the face of the research environment in Canadian universities over the last 7 years and have reaped a “brain gain” of exceptional young and established stars from other countries. Federal allocations to university RD the creation of the 2000 Canada Research Chairs; Millennium and Canada Graduate Scholarships; permanent funding for the Networks of Centres of Excellence; and the funding of indirect costs of research. Although co-funding programs represent a relatively small portion of the total federal investment, they are an important element in a range of funding vehicles designed to foster a world-class research enterprise in Canada. The largest programs with co-funding requirements are the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and Genome Canada (GC). To date, CFI, through its 60% matching requirement, has generated $4.3 billion in co-funding for university infrastructure from $2.7 billion in federal investments. For the much smaller GC program (which enables Canada to compete internationally in large-scale genomics research projects), co-funding has leveraged an additional $470 million for genomics researchers from a $375 million federal investment. Genomics programs in the Netherlands and Spain have been modeled after GC. Similar programs in Sweden, UK, and the United States use a co-funding model. For both the CFI and GC programs, provincial governments and not industry have provided most of the co-funding, a fact not mentioned by the Letter writers. Co-funding is an important component of funding in many countries, particularly for very large projects, to harness resources that would not otherwise be accessible to researchers. Another major point made in the Letter is that “[by] eschewing scientific excellence as the primary consideration, co-funded programs imperil scientific credibility…,” implying that co-funded proposals fail to meet the highest standards of excellence set by international peer review. This is demonstrably not the case: For both CFI and GC competitions, review panels have been made up of individuals with impeccable scientific credentials. Publicly funded research in Canada is subject to rigorous peer review, and scientific excellence is not compromised. However, scientific merit is not necessarily the sole determinant of success. For projects involving multimillion dollar investments of public money, funders have a responsibility to ensure that grantees are accountable for the use of funds through sound financial and management practices. In conclusion, I believe the facts show that Canada and Canadian researchers have benefited enormously not only from the massive federal investments, but also from the additional $5 billion that has been leveraged via co-funding mostly from provincial governments over the past 7 years and from the broader engagement of the R&D community. However, a portion of publicly funded research is subject to a double test of peer-reviewed excellence and the ability to attract co-funding partners from the public and private sectors. The result is more support for science and a stronger underpinning for the science and technology enterprise in Canada. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.308.5730.1867b