We, members of the Canadian Association for Responsible Research Funding, feel compelled to draw attention to a dismal state of university research funding in Canada. The problem in our opinion is not so much of "money shortage" but of an almost complete monopolization of research funding by a relatively small group of privileged grantees at NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council) and MRC (Medical Research Council).

The process of selecting who gets funding is secretive, has no form of external review, and the appeal system in place is totally inadequate, being completely controlled by the very system whose actions you are appealing. There is no accountability in the present system of funding as practiced by NSERC/MRC. This system has seriously damaged the efficient use of the Canadian taxpayer's research dollar. Not only is the distribution unfair and inefficient, but fear of the NIL award drives much of the research to the avenue of the sure-fire risk-free projects and away from innovation and originality. The net result of this policy has been devastating to the competitiveness of the Canadian researchers on the international scene and to the contribution that Canadian scientists could be making to Canada.

This deplorable, demoralizing situation seriously damages the return on investment of the Canadian research dollar and encourages sure-fire, risk-free research that will inevitably cause Canadian research to fall behind on the international scene. Very few people still believe that the so called "Centres of Excellence" live up to their name or that those not included are any less able or willing to do excellent research. It is a case of 'hype' over substance, notwithstanding all the glorifying official pronouncements and glossy reports.

We would like to stress that, contrary to misleading statements by representatives of the funding Councils, this sorry situation is not merely the result of government "under funding." On the contrary, there is a growing perception that many projects conducted by members of such Centres of Excellence are probably over funded relative to their return, if proper accounting were to be carried out.

Therefore, in addressing the funding issue, primary attention should be directed to rectifying the distribution system first, before throwing more money at the problem.

We believe that the following two measures will be especially desirable in the present context:

1. As a first step, NSERC and MRC should be required to remove from their funding panels all those members who are grant recipients themselves. Regardless of personal qualities of panel members, the very fact that those who must divide up the funding must decide if their own research is worth funding constitutes a fundamental conflict of interest.
   
   
2. It would be highly desirable to conduct an independent Parliamentary inquiry on the effects of NSERC/ MRC funding policies on Canadian science and technology. All people who are willing to provide evidence for such an inquiry should be given the opportunity to make their submission. In the current system dissenters have no voice, no appeal, and no representation. Such an independent inquiry would reveal a system that is biased, inefficient, and wasteful.

Alexander A. Berezin, Engineering Physics, McMaster University
Richard Gordon, Radiology, University of Manitoba
Peter Laznicka, Geological Science, University of Manitoba
Chary Rangacharyulu, Physics, University of Saskatchewan
Maria L. Torres, Mathematics, University of Regina

This represents the views of the authors and not of CAUT; the Grant Selection Committee members are formally required to step out of the meeting room when their own grants are voted for. -- ed.