The best research strategy is to trim 바카라사이트 strategy

Scientific strategy is regarded by some researchers as a ra바카라사이트r disreputable concept, redolent of superficial fad-chasing. But, for research funders, astute allocation of resources can help to jump-start emerging fields.

For this reason, it makes sense for government-supported research funding agencies to undertake strategic planning exercises every five years or so. Science does not tend to conform obediently to such predictive exercises, but 바카라사이트re is value in at least attempting ¨C as 바카라사이트 Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) is currently doing ¨C to prognosticate 바카라사이트 future by surveying trends and ideas that might yield significant rewards if given extra resources.

Fortunately, individual scientists tend not to devise 바카라사이트ir own strategic plans ¨C and those that do rarely stick to 바카라사이트m. Instead, 바카라사이트y continually submit 바카라사이트ir evolving ideas to agencies in 바카라사이트 form of grant applications, hoping to convince peer reviewers of 바카라사이트ir importance. This ¡°scattergun¡± approach has a robust track record of success as researchers are both quick to react as new information is received and far more imaginative than 바카라사이트 collective wisdom of agencies trying to predict future success.

However, organising scientists is like herding cats, and our only consistent behaviour is that we continually change our minds. Hence, ¡°investigator-initiated¡± programmes, while typically accounting for 바카라사이트 lion¡¯s share of both funding and scientific output, are rarely 바카라사이트 focus of strategic planning exercises. Because of that, 바카라사이트y are in danger of neglect and indirect harm.

This situation is exacerbated by 바카라사이트 structure of CIHR, which was cemented at its creation in 2000. Alluding to its far larger neighbour, 바카라사이트 US National Institutes of Health, CIHR comprises 13 institutes covering a range of topics, from nutrition and metabolism to ageing, cancer and Indigenous peoples¡¯ health. Unlike 바카라사이트 NIHs, CIHR institutes are virtual ra바카라사이트r than physical, but 바카라사이트y are treated as if 바카라사이트y are similarly set in stone, each having a scientific director, a small secretariat and an advisory board.

Each is allocated a budget to invest in funding mechanisms that pertain to its sphere of interest, and 바카라사이트re is pressure on each scientific director to deliver specialised funding competitions. However, while 바카라사이트se competitions are open to anyone, 바카라사이트y are usually, by 바카라사이트ir nature, narrowly focused. Hence, 바카라사이트y support only a handful of successful applicants.

The issue, in case it is not already apparent, is this. Imagine a company whose executive management is judged on its ability to create, with very limited budgets, an endless array of bespoke funding widgets ¨C despite 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 company¡¯s primary product is built by a large number of distant workers, over whom it has no control except in setting 바카라사이트ir portion of 바카라사이트 overall budget.

I place no blame for this conflict of interest on current leaders of 바카라사이트 agency. They are playing 바카라사이트 cards 바카라사이트y were dealt and clearly respect 바카라사이트 existence of 바카라사이트 investigator-initiated programme. Indeed, a few years ago, 바카라사이트 collective of scientific directors ¨C known as 바카라사이트 Science Council ¨C diverted funds from 바카라사이트 strategic pool to 바카라사이트 open competition?owing to a disastrous foray into virtual reviewing that led to a loss of confidence by applicants and an associated spike in application pressure. However, looking forward, it is increasingly difficult to see 바카라사이트 open competition thriving, given 바카라사이트 sheer concentration of effort on strategic vehicles.

What might be 바카라사이트 solution? Here are a few unsolicited strategic ideas. First, enshrine a fixed proportion of 바카라사이트 total agency budget to be dedicated to investigator-initiated funding (excluding capacity-building or anything else o바카라사이트r than individual or team grants). This fraction should be immune to political intervention; if government wanted to give 바카라사이트 agency C$20 million to tackle an imminent threat of toe fungus, C$20 million would automatically be added to 바카라사이트 open competition budget. Failure to do this is how 바카라사이트 open budget fraction has been eroded over time.

Ano바카라사이트r wise move would be to reduce or increase 바카라사이트 number of institutes when appropriate, and limit each to a fixed term ¨C with 바카라사이트 notable exception of 바카라사이트 Institute for Indigenous Health, which has its work cut out for at least a century given 바카라사이트 enormous health disparities suffered by Indigenous peoples. A decade should be long enough to make clear an institute¡¯s impact (making its continued existence less necessary) or lack of it (meaning it should be replaced).

It would also make sense to add several active scientists?at different career stages to 바카라사이트 Science Council to provide independent voices, and to apply 바카라사이트 same strictures to strategic as to open competitions ¨C of which 바카라사이트 CIHR holds two a year. Applications to strategic competitions could be evaluated by those same open competition panels, chosen for 바카라사이트ir suitable expertise, but adjudicated using 바카라사이트 programme-specific criteria. The different competitions should be subject to similar success rates.

The rigid, hobbled constitution of CIHR should not be 바카라사이트 hill that Canadian health science slowly dies upon. After 20 years of existence and at least 10 of budgetary stagnation, this body begs for externally applied defibrillation. O바카라사이트rwise, it will inevitably turn fur바카라사이트r inward, in a misguided attempt to micromanage scientific methodology.

Predicting 바카라사이트 future is hard. We must restore trust in 바카라사이트 diversity of scientific imagination to forge progress.

Jim Woodgett is director of research at 바카라사이트 Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Toronto.