Canadian Chemical Blueprint Condemned

QUEBEC CITY—A proposed blueprint for Canadian chemical research has been condemned by two of the organizations that commissioned it. The committee that wrote the report said Canadian academic research compared unfavorably with work done in the United States. It recommended a more selective funding structure that would bolster top-notch programs and allow them to compete internationally. It acknowledged that the policy would hurt smaller departments, whose faculty would receive fewer, smaller grants. But its assumptions and conclusions have been attacked by researchers and the nation's major grant-awarding body, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). In 1981 NSERC joined with the Canadian Council of University Chemistry Chairmen (CCUCC), Chemical Institute of Canada (CIC) and Royal Society of Canada in inviting 10 prominent chemistry professors to "chart future directions for chemistry in Canada and identify the associated requirements for financial resources." The panel was led by Howard C. Clark of Daihousie University and James A. Morrison, formerly of McMaster University. The report, Towards Excellence in Chemistry, appeared last September and caused great disquiet. This unhappiness surfaced publicly for the first time here last month during a debate at the 70th Canadian Chemical Conference. CCUCC chairman Colin H.W Jones of Simon Fraser University has been an outspoken critic of the report. "There is a sense of unease relating to the overly simplistic use of a comparison between the U.S. and Canada," he said. "You cannot arrive at a proper picture of Canada by taking what happens in the U.S. and dividing by 10." Following the report, he noted, would reduce to seven (from 23) the number of departments in which a majority of faculty members receive NSERC funding. The situation has worsened in the past few years, Jones complained, "as the money flowing into chemistry did not keep pace with other disciplines, and the number of grantees in chemistry has dropped. We do not think that is healthy." He contrasted the attitude of chemists with that of physicists, who "don't blush at proposing spending more money for research." 'A Harmful Effect' The report may have received a fatal blow from Nigel Lloyd, NSERC's assistant director for operating grants. The council's position, he said, is one of "skepticism about the comparative analysis and rejection of its main conclusions." NSERC felt strongly that "such drastic steps as have been proposed would have a harmful effect on the critical mass of research being carried out in departments across the country," he said. Smaller departments have a role to play and should not be squeezed out of research, Lloyd said. Cutting out the bottom 50 percent of grants, he estimated, would only raise the average level of funding for the top 50 percent from $50,000 to $70,000 (in Canadian dollars). One member of the panel, James R. Bolton of University of Western Ontario, said the report emphasizes selectivity. Its nine proposals were meant to reform NSERC's structure and methods so that its funds are spread less thin. It suggested that the number of grants be reduced by 10 percent a year over five years, to concentrate funding on the best 200 to 300 researchers in the country. The report attributed the excellence of U.S. chemistry to the fact that 65 percent of federal funds go to the top 20 percent of university departments. About 44 percent of U.S. chemistry faculty receive National Science Foundation grants, compared with the 70 percent of Canadian faculty who receive NSERC money. In addition, the American grants are nearly twice as large as those given to Canadian faculty. "If we want to compete in international science," Bolton said, "we're going to have to be a lot more selective in terms of individual grants and in facilitating the movement of faculty to build up departments." Few Friends Canadian university chemists, unlike their U.S. colleagues, receive little industrial support and must rely on one government agency (NSERC) for federal funds. The Clark-Morrison report called for greater help from industry, but so far has made few friends. Bruce Hutchinson of Polysar said he was "appalled" at the report's attitude toward industry, specifically at "the implication that making improvements in a complex chemical plant and solving customers' application needs are unworthy intellectual exercises." NSERC did agree with the report on the need for longer grants, perhaps extended to five years. They should be given to top researchers in high-risk fields, Lloyd said, "to encourage risk-taking." Richard Stevenson is deputy editor of Chemistry in Britain.

Canadian Chemical Blueprint Condemned

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of