What We Heard: Tri-agency engagement with the research community on modernization of the federal research support system

We wish to thank everyone, from organizations to individuals across Canada’s broad research community, who reached out to engage colleagues and share their knowledge of the federal research funding system in responding to our call for input and ideas on modernization of the federal research support system. Your insights, captured in the following pages, will help guide our agencies, now and in the future, as we work together with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Health to strengthen Canada’s research enterprise.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

In June and July 2024, Canada’s three federal research funding agencies—the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)—invited community input on the Government of Canada’s vision to create a new capstone research funding organization as announced in Budget 2024.

Through engagement sessions and written submissions, respondents in all disciplinary communities and those representing community-wide interests expressed appreciation for Budget 2024 investments in research and research training and the opportunity to contribute to creation of the new research funding organization, enhancing the impact of federal research funding through increased coordination. Overwhelmingly, they articulated clear and consistent themes in calling for sustained community engagement and further clarity in the scope and mandate of the proposed capstone organization, urging officials to build on core principles and existing strengths in the research ecosystem while setting out practical approaches to shape the new organization. The key themes are grouped below around these three tenets of respondents’ advice.

The Government of Canada announced its intention to create a new capstone research funding organization in Budget 2024 as part of its response to recommendations from the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System. In a Statement and Letter addressed to Canada’s three federal research funding agencies (CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC) on June 17, 2024, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Health asked them to engage organizations in all fields and representing researchers across all career stages to enable the research community to:

• inform details in design of the new organization within parameters set out in Budget 2024;
• provide input into the implementation plan of the new organization to advance internationally collaborative, multidisciplinary and mission-driven research; and,
• identify any risks, to mitigate or avoid, related to its implementation.

The ministers asked the three agencies to submit a summary report in July 2024 to ensure that community perspectives can meaningfully influence decision-making related to the new organization.

After consultation with the Chief Science Advisor of Canada, the three agencies reached out to associations and organizations in their own fields and, together, to those representing institutions and organizations with community-wide interests. They asked all organizations to engage their members and, through them, students, researchers, administrators and people in research communities across the country. On their websites, through social media and in virtual roundtable discussions the agencies invited all community members to help shape the new capstone research funding organization by responding to questions posed in the Appendix to the June 17, 2024 Ministers’ letter by July 17, 2024 (see Annex A, below). Virtual roundtable discussions included observers from: the CFI; Health Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; and, the Office of the Chief Science Advisor.

Responses came from across the research ecosystem in numerous discussions, virtual meetings and 118 written submissions from universities of all sizes, colleges and polytechnics, charities, societies, research hospitals, students, postdoctoral fellows and individual researchers as well as a small number of Indigenous organizations and institutions, politicians, unions and public advocacy groups, federal and provincial organizations. See Annex B for the complete list. 

Organizations and individuals across the Canadian research landscape responded to the agencies with clarity and consistency. They expressed their appreciation for the substantial Budget 2024 commitments to research and research trainees and welcomed the proposed capstone organization with a sense of cautious optimism, tempered with curiosity and important caveats, recognizing its potential to bring strategic vision, greater coordination and increased support for mission-driven, international and interdisciplinary research to the federal research funding ecosystem.

Respondents speaking for distinct communities and those representing community-wide interests addressed similar themes in calling for (1) sustained community engagement with the new organization, (2) urging officials to build on core principles and essential strengths in the Canadian research funding ecosystem while (3) providing sound advice to shape the design and development of the new organization.

These three tenets of the community’s response, each elaborated through several key themes, framed researchers’ responses to the ministers’ questions.

Respondents welcomed the opportunity to contribute to the design and development of the proposed new capstone research funding organization and expressed a strong desire to engage further in both the short and long term.

In the short term, respondents sought opportunities to engage beyond the formal consultation period to ensure that all their members had sufficient information and time to contribute to development of the new organization. They cautioned that their submissions should not be considered as exhaustive reflections of their communities’ perspectives. Many voiced particular concern that the engagement period did not allow for sufficient dialogue with Indigenous communities or equity-deserving groups. As a result, respondents consistently emphasized the need for close and ongoing engagement through the development of the capstone organization.

Long term, respondents strongly recommended that the new organization establish permanent structures and processes for continuous community engagement to ensure its transparency, accountability and effectiveness (see “Interface between researchers and research support,” below). 

Many respondents set out the following core principles, underpinning the Canadian research support system, to provide consistent guidance in development of the new organization.

Respondents identified three core principles underlying the Canadian research funding ecosystem, essential to retain in the new organization: academic freedom; research excellence; and peer/merit review. They highlighted that the capstone organization should remain independent from outside influence. While noting that some capstone organization initiatives may be guided by broader Government of Canada priorities and partnerships, funding decisions should remain free of political interference. To maintain the integrity of the Canadian research funding ecosystem, the gold standard of merit-based peer review, currently used by the three agencies, should not be altered.

Respondents affirmed the centrality of investigator-initiated research to the entire research enterprise and insisted that it continue to provide the foundation for Canadian research. While mission-driven research can serve as an avenue to help address today’s and tomorrow’s most pressing challenges, there should be dedicated funding to allow exploratory research to continue, to inform mission-driven research and generate breakthroughs that may not necessarily align with current or future Government of Canada priorities.

Without fail, respondents welcomed the Government of Canada’s investment in scholarships and fellowships announced in Budget 2024. They highlighted that continued investment in research training was needed to maintain and increase the competitiveness of Canadian research, and reiterated calls to encourage greater mobility across the international research community (for example, permitting Canadian students to take their awards outside of the country while allowing international students to apply for the three agencies’ scholarships and fellowships).

Numerous submissions emphasized the importance of graduate student and postdoctoral fellow representation within the governance structure of the new organization. Some also asked how the streamlined talent program, announced in Budget 2024, would fit into the new structure.

Respondents recognized the enduring value of the agencies’ efforts to pursue research excellence through greater EDIA in their organizations. They saw EDIA as a fundamental policy that should also be reflected in the new organizations’ legislation, governance structures and programming. They underscored the importance of continuing work to increase equitable access to funding opportunities and provide guidance and support to institutions. They noted this work drives research results applicable to the general population, and in the case of health research, results in better patient outcomes and more efficient use of health resources.  Looking ahead, and recognizing diverse disciplinary expertise, respondents emphasized that an immediate priority of the new organization should be to ensure that EDIA and decolonization initiatives, appropriate for each discipline, remain key priorities.

Respondents recommended that the new organization support ongoing work in these areas with advisory committees and the allocation of dedicated, long-term funding for initiatives that foster EDIA capacity-building across the research ecosystem. Specifically, the new organization should focus on addressing barriers to participation faced by historically excluded groups including, but not limited to, women, racialized communities, people living with disabilities, people with lived and living experience (PWLLE), Indigenous Peoples, and members of 2SLGBTQIA+ communities. Engaging knowledge users across the research lifecycle would further contribute to integrating EDIA in mission-driven research.

In addition, respondents stressed that antiracism and anti-ableism should be integrated throughout governance structures and recognized as research priorities so that their key principles guide decision-making around design and implementation of the new organization. They pointed to the need to ensure continued efforts to effectively address systemic barriers faced by diverse populations, including Black and Indigenous researchers and students. They noted that a distinctions-based approach is a key component of many interdisciplinary topics such as climate change and artificial intelligence.

Indigenous organizations able to respond in the time provided expressed a willingness and desire to engage more directly with the government on the proposed changes to the federal research support system. They noted, however, that the short time frame and timing of the engagement process was inadequate for broad and meaningful community engagement. They called for substantive consultations with Indigenous governing bodies, researchers and rightsholders through a distinctions-based, culturally informed approach that respects the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the Crown’s Duty to Consult, the Inuit Nunangat Policy and other relevant Indigenous rights frameworks.

Respondents also expressed concern that there was no Indigenous representation on the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System or engagement in development of the proposed capstone organization. They sought to clarify the vision and objectives underpinning the government’s proposal and asked how it would build on, and contribute to, existing strategies advancing Indigenous research priorities, such as the National Inuit Strategy on Research and the interagency strategic plan Setting New Directions to Support Indigenous Research and Research Training in Canada, co-developed with First Nations, Inuit and Métis partners. Respondents also asked how existing partnerships between the agencies and Indigenous organizations would be preserved and strengthened. The possibility that the capstone organization may prioritize mission-driven and international research raised particular concerns, as Indigenous researchers are already playing a role in addressing global issues through holistic approaches that challenge disciplinary and colonial boundaries while maintaining critical connections to local knowledge systems and communities. They recommended rethinking the notion of international research to encourage collaborations among communities whose traditional territories are divided by colonial boundaries.

To support Indigenous participation in the new organization, respondents advised that the capstone governance model include appropriate, distinctions-based representation, emphasizing that a single Indigenous person on a board is inadequate in a distinctions-based research landscape. They also stressed the importance of establishing formal mechanisms for ongoing, meaningful engagement with Indigenous researchers, Knowledge Keepers and community leaders throughout the capstone development and implementation phases.

As a priority, they recommended that the new organization address research structures, and funding disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous postsecondary institutions and organizations, to alleviate administrative burdens and better support community-based, holistic modes of inquiry and knowledge sharing. They asked for funding to flow directly to Indigenous community organizations to enable internal capacity-building and help redress extractive research practices and inequitable access to agency funding. In addition, they underscored the need to support community-based ethics review boards, uphold community protocols, and ensure Indigenous data governance, intellectual property accreditation and recognition of Indigenous community members’ contributions to university-led research projects.

Finally, respondents called for support—through existing or new structures—for Indigenous-led and managed organizations and institutions that are poised to address the needs of Indigenous communities. The development of an Indigenous research agency was recommended to ensure Indigenous-controlled governance, policy, and the coordination of grants to support Indigenous research priorities.

Respondents recognized that the way principles of academic freedom and EDIA—and a commitment to Indigenous research priorities—are anchored in the agency governance and program delivery represents an essential strength of the Canadian research ecosystem.

They urged officials to retain important aspects of the leadership and governance structures of the three federal research funding agencies. Some respondents recommended maintaining strong leadership roles for the presidents of each agency to preserve agency autonomy and ensure that the positions attract the necessary talent, experience and leadership capacity. Respondents overwhelmingly pointed to the need to ensure that a diversity of perspectives and experience informs strategic decision-making as well as the design and delivery of research initiatives. Some recommended cross-appointments between advisory bodies to the funding agencies and the board of directors of the new organization to ensure sufficient representation for each community to participate in the decision-making process. As relatively few details were available during the engagement process regarding the relationship between the agencies and the new organization, respondents also sought ongoing consultation as the new organization takes shape.

Respondents also emphasized that the chief executive officer of the new organization should be a respected and experienced academic leader so that independent leadership and unbiased decision-making remain hallmarks of the federal research funding ecosystem. That person should be selected through a rigorous independent process, engaging representatives from the research community, partners and the public, to ensure they inspire confidence and bring experienced leadership as well as understanding of multiple disciplines, knowledge mobilization and the research funding ecosystem to the new organization.

To affirm support for investigator-initiated research, and provide stability across the research enterprise, respondents recommended preserving the integrity of the three research funding agencies’ existing budgets. They also emphasized the importance of maintaining and increasing tri-agency investments in investigator-initiated research, with strong and sustainable support across disciplinary communities, and cautioned against redirecting such investments towards mission-driven programming. Rather, separate new investments in mission-driven research should complement and add to growing strength in discovery-based research.

Cognizant of potential disruptions in program delivery caused by the creation of a new research funding organization, respondents urged officials to ensure the continued and reliable delivery of existing programs and Budget 2024 funding commitments. Many postsecondary institutions, and their associations, expressed the need for careful planning of funding and resources to avoid or mitigate any disruptions or delays in ongoing program and policy delivery at the three agencies during design and implementation of the new organization.

Most health ecosystem partners welcomed the capstone organization proposal as outlined in the ministers’ statement and letter. They viewed its creation as an opportunity for convergence that could increase interdisciplinary coordination and synergies. However, their support for the new organization was contingent on robust approaches to ensure successful integration of CIHR into the capstone organization and maintenance of the agency’s strong ties to the health portfolio. 

The community highlighted several considerations and potential approaches to support the integration of CIHR and its connection to the health portfolio:

• Linkage to the Minister of Health: Respondents stated that CIHR and the capstone organization as a whole should maintain alignment with the Minister of Health and continue to involve and engage the Minister in decision making and appointments. Some respondents went further, stating that reporting—of CIHR and the capstone organization—should be to the Minister of Health alongside the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. Some respondents reiterated that strong and direct linkages to the health portfolio are critical, given the current health challenges faced by Canadians, preparedness for health emergencies and translation of research into health solutions.
• Support for Retention of the Institute Model: Respondents agreed that the CIHR institute model must be preserved and, further, that institutes maintain their latitude to deliver interdisciplinary, strategic and priority-driven programming and to be flexible, nimble, and responsive if they are to continue to meet the needs of the vast health research ecosystem. Respondents indicated that institutes should continue to have autonomy to partner on funding opportunities and activities.
• Define the Role of Provinces and Territories and Align with Their Priorities: Respondents indicated that, to maintain the connection between health research and the broader health portfolio, connection to and alignment with the priorities of provinces and territories is needed. Further, respondents highlighted the unique role of provinces and territories as they are responsible for the management, organization and delivery of health-care services for their residents. Respondents provided perspectives on where provinces and territories have strengths to contribute to the capstone organization, such as their local and provincial convening power, development of best practices and providing evidence in national initiatives, experience in dual reporting to innovation and to health, and experience and understanding of challenges related to data sharing across jurisdictions.
• Integrate the Unique Role and Strengths of Health Charities in the Health Research Lifecycle: Respondents highlighted the strides made in knowledge translation (KT) / knowledge mobilization (KM) for health-based research (e.g., impacts on policy) and recognized the contributions of the health charity sector to the ongoing development of KT/KM. Respondents stated that KT/KM need to be preserved as an impact of health research in the capstone organization. Respondents elaborated that translating scientific discoveries into standardized care protocols and clinical practice guidelines is critical to patients receiving the highest quality of care based on the most current evidence and ultimately, for maintaining and improving health-care standards. To robustly address health challenges through the lifecycle (idea to implementation), the new organization must ensure these important relationships with the health charity sector are embraced, maintained and strengthened.
• Recognize and Leverage Research Hospitals for Research and Innovation: Respondents underscored the need to recognize and leverage the strengths of research hospitals for research and innovation. They emphasized that research hospitals need to be considered eligible for funding, as they uniquely are under CIHR’s mandate. Additionally, it was highlighted that small institutions, with close ties to communities, regional hospitals and health organizations, are well positioned to make strong impacts in areas beyond treating a specific disease.  Further, respondents stated that research hospitals have unique perspectives and insights to the needs of health research carried out in clinical settings, and the contributions of health researchers working in the health system and health delivery needs to be considered.
• Ensure that Health Research Expertise is Represented Throughout the Capstone Organization: Respondents stated the importance of health research being acknowledged, maintained, strengthened and represented throughout the capstone organization. Specifically, respondents reflected that diverse health research expertise must be included within any new governance and/or committees to successfully improve health and health policies and meet the health, economic and social objectives of the new organization. Many respondents advised governance should include diverse representation from:
  
  
  • well-established CIHR structures (e.g., institutes, institute advisory boards);
  • health research ecosystem partners such as research and clinical community members, PWLLE, health-care providers, industry and biotechnology, not-for profit, investors, regulators and payors.
     
• Retention of Elements of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act: Respondents referenced the importance of retaining elements of the CIHR Act, given the mandate of the Institutes to “improve the health of Canadians”, and the need for this to not only be preserved, but also assimilated into the core mandate of the capstone organization. Several highlighted the value of the Act in outlining the critical roles of CIHR, and its institutes, across the health research lifecycle (from capacity development to knowledge mobilization).
• Recognition of People with Lived and Living Experience: Respondents called for recognition of the role of PWLLE within the governance, mandate and priorities of the capstone organization. Respondents called for recognition of the value of the increasing interest of PWLLEs in understanding and meaningfully contributing to the research enterprise.
• Include Existing Health Platforms, Cohort Studies, and Initiatives: Respondents stated that the capstone organization needs to leverage, support and coordinate data platforms for health, current cohort studies (e.g., Canadian Longitudinal Study in Aging, Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health), and existing initiatives for Clinical Trials Infrastructure (i.e., Biomanufacturing and Life Sciences Strategy, Canada Biomedical Research Fund and Biosciences Research Infrastructure Fund). Respondents emphasized the value of these existing infrastructures, and contributions that could be made to the new organization.
• Maintain Linkages Between Research and Clinical Care: Respondents emphasized that linkages between research and clinical care through connections with Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for example, must be maintained. Respondents suggested creating a liaison position between the new capstone organization and Health Canada.

Respondents sought to shape the new opportunities created by the capstone organization by addressing issues of governance, coordination, resources and change management for the organization, as well as thematic concerns, including support for research infrastructure, mission-driven, international and interdisciplinary research and a plurality of research methods, the language of research and the evaluation of research outcomes. They also focused significant attention on the integration of CIHR into the new organization.

Respondents highlighted the importance of maintaining linkages with disciplinary communities through agency governance structures and recommended that the governance and advisory bodies of the new organization serve, in the same way, to create effective connections with the research community as a whole.

Many called for careful consideration of the capstone organization’s internal governance structures, including composition of the board of directors and the relationship between the CEO and the heads of the three funding agencies. They recommended a clear and transparent decision-making process for appointments to the new board of directors to safeguard the organization from political influence, and expressed concerns regarding the agencies’ potential loss of autonomy, diminished researcher participation in the new governance framework and, by extension, the independence of funding decisions.

In addition to embedding core principles of transparency and accountability in the new organization’s governance structures, respondents asserted that a commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion should also guide composition of its board of directors. It will be essential to include equal representation from each disciplinary community, as well as distinctions-based representation of Indigenous communities, students and postdoctoral fellows, colleges, polytechnics and universities by size and geography and knowledge users, in various sectors, while also reflecting Canada’s linguistic diversity. To contribute to maintaining links to the health portfolio, governance should also include representation from research hospitals, health charities, PWLLE and the provinces and territories (see CIHR and the health portfolio in Section 2 above for details).

Respondents welcomed the government’s proposal to increase coordination across the federal research support system. They stressed the need to articulate clearly the relationship between the capstone organization, the three federal research funding agencies, the CFI, the Office of the Chief Science Advisor, and the Advisory Council on Science and Innovation announced in Budget 2024. Moreover, the roles and responsibilities of each organization should be delineated to minimize overlapping or conflicting mandates that could increase the complexity of research support structures. Coordination across the health research ecosystem, specifically as it relates to provincial health research funders and their mandates in managing health-care, will also be critical to maintain (see CIHR and the health portfolio in Section 2 above for details).

Many respondents urged careful consideration of each organization’s role, and engagement of the research community, in the development and implementation of a national science and innovation strategy. Some recommended that responsibility for its development lie with the proposed Advisory Council on Science and Innovation and encouraged the government to establish the Council as an external, independent advisory body concurrently with the capstone organization. Others suggested that the capstone organization might also play a role in the development of the strategy. Both envisioned the strategy as a roadmap to help guide the capstone’s mission-driven investments though not directing the new organization’s funding or programming decisions.

Respondents called widely for greater alignment between research and research infrastructure support. While indicating support for the CFI as an independent organization, many submissions underscored that its relationship to the capstone organization should be clearly defined to avoid overlap and reduce administrative burdens. Many submissions recommended greater integration of the CFI into the capstone governance structure to enhance coordination and strategic alignment. For example, it was suggested that the CFI should be represented in the capstone’s board of directors or have a clear means to ensure increased coordination. At the same time, the CFI emphasized the advantages of its independent mandate and status in leveraging federal, provincial and institutional investments that might otherwise require government-to-government agreements. 

While acknowledging the critical role of the granting agencies in the research enterprise, respondents noted that they are only three parts of the larger research funding ecosystem within Canada. With this in mind, respondents recommended that the new organization position itself as a connector and take steps to strengthen coordination mechanisms with other key research funding organizations in federal and provincial governments—or supported in whole or in part by those governments— and across sectors. They recommended mapping and supporting existing networks and strategic initiatives and suggested creation of a new national network of research and innovation organizations to serve as a platform for continuing collaboration. Others recommended the organization of annual consultative forums, bringing together multiple sectors and jurisdictions to identify societal challenges requiring coordinated research efforts. Such forums would also build understanding of the roles played by actors across the ecosystem and facilitate the identification of issues and opportunities to support more effective policy and program development and implementation. There are a number of unique partners and networks in the health research ecosystem that need to be included in order to maintain critical linkages to the health portfolio and priorities (see CIHR and the health portfolio in Section 2 above for details).

Respondents proposed that the design and implementation phase of the new capstone organization provides an opportunity to re-examine federal support for research infrastructure. Several submissions across the research ecosystem highlighted the need for improved support and lifecycle funding, longer term research projects, and the development of digital tools that enable researchers to collaborate and share data.

Other respondents highlighted the need to support mapping and coordination efforts across the research infrastructure ecosystem to maximize investments and ensure their alignment with a strategic research agenda, while enabling broad access to infrastructure facilities and equipment. Respondents noted that many such initiatives, that may fall under the capstone organization's coordination mandate, have begun and could be built upon. The new organization should ensure that pre-existing initiatives and infrastructure are leveraged, maintained and strengthened.

Some respondents wondered if the funding model for research infrastructure could be modernized to rely less heavily on matching provincial support, as this can reinforce inequities between the provinces and territories. Currently, researchers can be influenced by their own province’s mission-driven priorities, or lack thereof, when considering the development of research infrastructure.

Respondents sought clarity regarding the source and sustainability of funding for the new organization, emphasizing that the funds should not come at the expense of the three agencies’ existing budgets. As most graduate students are funded through investigator-initiated research, they emphasized that reductions in funding for investigator-initiated research would impact individual researchers’ ability to mentor and support a diverse talent pool. It would also have operational implications for postsecondary institutions, especially those with limited research management capacity, potentially increasing their administrative burden and reducing available resources to support trainees at the institutional level. Taken together, respondents strongly advised that new and separate operational and grant funding be provided for the new organization.

Small and medium-sized universities raised concerns that the new capstone organization’s focus on mission-driven and interdisciplinary research could further the existing funding disparities between smaller and larger institutions in Canada. They underscored the important role smaller institutions, as well as colleges and polytechnics, play in regional economies and in connecting talent to industry. It is recommended that the new governance structure should account for representatives from these smaller institutions at the capstone and agency-specific levels.

Respondents highlighted that creation of the new capstone organization provides a critical opportunity to acknowledge and redress current inequities in the allocation of research funding across the research ecosystem. Moreover, if not adequately addressed, there is a risk of increasing disparities, as smaller institutions worry that the capstone organization may favour larger, English-speaking, and more research-intensive universities and suggested that safeguards be put in place to guarantee that all postsecondary institutions across Canada benefit from future funding opportunities.

While many respondents noted the opportunities the capstone organization presents to minimize administrative burden, some expressed concern that it may create an additional bureaucratic layer. Respondents suggested that the capstone avoid additional administrative requirements for institutions and acknowledge the limited capacity of small and medium-sized institutions for the grant application processes and responding to new policy requirements—offering necessary supports where appropriate. This balance of reducing administrative burdens and proactively supporting institutions throughout new application processes should be a key principle of the design and implementation of the new organization.

Some respondents encouraged the government to implement reforms gradually so as not to create additional bureaucratic layers that delay decision-making or minimize agility to the ecosystem. A clear theme in the submissions was the need to minimize disruptions—both in the ecosystem and in ongoing research funding. The integration of CIHR into the new organization was a particular concern in this regard, given the agency’s distinct operational and governance structures. As an example, respondents pointed to the complexity of recent operations to restructure the Fonds de recherché du Québec - Santé. Respondents stated before any restructuring, it is critical to have a comprehensive understanding of the diversity of health-specific partners and their relationship to CIHR. This preparedness will positively inform change management for the health ecosystem and help minimize disruptions. (see CIHR and the health portfolio in Section 2, above, for details).

Respondents noted that the success of the new organization, and effective coordination across the ecosystem, would depend in many ways on clear definitions of mission-driven, international and interdisciplinary research for program design and delivery. Similarly, this would require clarity in the definition of fundamental and applied research. There was also recognition of the need to clarify terms such as multi-, inter- and, trans-disciplinary, as well as strategic and priority driven. Several respondents strongly suggested using the descriptor “investigator-initiated research” rather than “curiosity-driven research” or “fundamental research”.

The term “mission-driven” raised particular concerns for researchers in the social sciences and humanities, and Indigenous communities, who saw its historical religious, military, and colonial connotations as potentially exclusionary. In addition, they recognized potential difficulties for social scientists and humanists to fit easily within certain approaches to “mission-driven” research, which would limit opportunities for broader community engagement and impact. They recommended the use of more inclusive language, such as “moonshot”, and a definition that recognizes the distinct interdisciplinary differences between the natural sciences, engineering, health, social sciences and humanities.

Finally, respondents noted that mission-driven, international and interdisciplinary research do not necessarily overlap, while initiatives focused on a particular mission are not necessarily conducive to interdisciplinarity and can exclude certain research methodologies. As a result, numerous respondents recommended that definitions account for the inherent disciplinary differences across the research community.

At the same time, diverse respondents welcomed the focus on mission-driven research as an opportunity to expand and develop capacity within a broad and inclusive research community to drive economic growth and talent development through research. They saw opportunities to strengthen connections with multiple sectors, increase the impact of their research and respond to both local and global challenges. To maximize future investments in mission-driven research, they recommended wide collaboration across sectors in mission design, and support for a range of interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral projects that embrace different funding levels and degrees of risk.

Some asked how mission-driven program design and delivery would be addressed, and suggested piloting new and varied approaches as part of a scoping process, including asking researchers a priori how their research might apply to different government priorities. Many called for an approach to interdisciplinary and mission-driven research that specifically recognizes the value of social sciences and humanities research, and recommended that mission-driven programming remain open to different approaches, scales, partners and timelines, and integrate ethical, environmental, legal and social impacts, alongside economic factors.

Respondents also noted that mission-driven programming would require adapted eligibility and evaluation criteria and oversight processes to enable participation from a broad range of institutions and organizations. They noted that the success of mission-driven programming would hinge significantly on institutional expertise and support for engaging actors across multiple sectors, managing intellectual property and providing appropriate skills training for students and researchers. Institutions will require support for these activities to ensure the success of mission-driven research.

To raise Canada’s global research profile and appeal for international partners, development of a national strategy and an increase in overall research funding levels, on par with the three per cent average for OECD countries, was recommended, along with dedicated resources to foster equitable and broad participation in international research across the Canadian ecosystem. Some respondents suggested leveraging global research partnerships facilitated by multilateral organizations, while others recommended developing horizontal programming focused on specific regions or multilateral agendas like the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. At the same time, Indigenous respondents proposed rethinking the notion of international research from Indigenous and decolonial perspectives to address global issues through holistic research approaches that maintain critical connections to local knowledge systems and communities.

In addition, respondents recommended improving outward-facing interface mechanisms and policies to facilitate international engagement, cooperation and mobility. For example, the establishment of an official contact point or “entry window” was recommended to enable researchers and funders from other countries to approach the Canadian research system and understand its programs and requirements in areas such as open science and Indigenous research. Other respondents emphasized the importance of adequately supporting international students and researchers already in Canada, and urged the new organization to work closely with key players across government to improve access to research funding and simplify administrative and immigration policies and processes.

Respondents recommended that the new organization support diverse research methodologies, epistemologies and interdisciplinary approaches, at different scales, with different outcomes, and recognize different institutional and regional realities. It should not prioritize large-scale projects involving partners from a limited range of sectors to the detriment of initiatives that mobilize diverse partners and approaches with varied impacts. Mission-driven research support, in particular, should be scaled in order to be accessible to diverse actors, in multiple sectors, while ensuring capacity to meet a range of industry and social needs. A number of respondents also pointed to the need to support the translation of research findings in all fields to enhance further the broad cultural, social, economic and health impacts of Canadian research.

Robust impact evaluation frameworks will also be needed to measure the societal and economic contributions of mission-driven, international and interdisciplinary research, to ensure accountability and continuous improvement. Respondents called for the establishment of clear key performance indicators (KPIs) for coordination and collaboration aligned with the objectives of the capstone organization. They recognized that KPIs for interdisciplinary research should encompass the breadth of discipline-specific outcomes and reflect the uniqueness of participating disciplines.

Research outputs and the dissemination of research, including knowledge synthesis and knowledge mobilization activities, differ greatly within and across each disciplinary community. With that in mind, respondents emphasized that nontraditional methods for supporting and evaluating research outputs, including the social, economic, environmental, legal, policy and ethical impacts of the research, should be taken into consideration by the new organization. In addition, they recommended ongoing public evaluation of the new organization itself.

The health community especially emphasized that health outcomes represent critical impacts beyond commercialization. In some pillars of health-based research, commercialization is not the endpoint, even in an interdisciplinary model, when improvements in patient care, overall population health and other tangible health outcomes are achieved. At the same time, the health community recognized that there is huge potential for the capstone organization to promote and encourage partnerships across different sectors, with a range of knowledge users, to facilitate more effective knowledge sharing and commercialization.

Several respondents emphasized that the new organization should address the place of French-language research in the research funding ecosystem to maximize the impact of all Canadian research. They expressed concern that the dominance of English in global and Canadian scientific publications, coupled with the prestige associated with publishing in English, directly affects the visibility and recognition of research conducted in French. They noted that this could also affect the career progression of Francophone researchers, including their success in federal funding competitions. Respondents recommended that funding agencies pay closer attention to the evaluation criteria for French-language applications and the composition of peer review committees. Specific evaluation criteria for French-language grant applications should be considered to counter unconscious biases and promote linguistic equity in the Canadian academic environment.

Respondents called for a simple and inclusive user-centric interface between researchers and research support programs. They recommended close community involvement in the development of application and grant management policies, procedures and portals to help ensure that programs are accessible and responsive to diverse research communities, types of research, and institutional and regional realities. They stressed the need to simplify policies and processes for reasons of both efficiency and equity, noting that a single grant management platform and data management system for federal research programs would help minimize administrative costs for researchers and institutions alike. They also counselled holistic consideration and adjustment of timelines for both research and research infrastructure support, with a view to reducing administrative complexity and streamlining competition and reporting deadlines.

At the same time, respondents urged the government to increase support for research-related costs and expand eligible indirect costs, noting that the college sector and small and medium-sized universities as well as Indigenous and community-based organizations are often under resourced to administer increasingly complex programs and fund research-related requirements and operations, including the maintenance of research facilities and equipment. Alternatively, they suggested establishing support structures for institutions and organizations with limited research management capacity to help them navigate application and reporting processes and address evolving compliance requirements.

In addition, respondents emphasized the centrality of ethics review frameworks and processes to the conduct and assessment of research, stressing the need for capacity-building support in these areas. Respondents from the health research community, in particular, highlighted opportunities for the new organization to lead and enable coordination of ethical review processes for research involving humans and animals, urging it to harmonize ethics approvals and ensure support for data privacy issues to make health services research more effective.

Finally, as described in the “coordination” section above, respondents recommended that the new organization establish formal and informal structures and opportunities for continuous community engagement to ensure transparency, accountability and effectiveness in its governance structures and facilitate meaningful engagement and coordination across the Canadian research ecosystem.

Across the research community, organizations and individuals welcomed the opportunity to articulate core values and reflect on essential strengths defining the Canadian research ecosystem, around which to build the new capstone research funding organization. They recognized its promise, expressing cautious optimism, voicing key questions while, at the same time, offering their best advice on design and implementation of the new organization. Looking ahead, they are eager to continue the discussion with government, to help shape new opportunities for Canadian research.

Extract from the Ministers’ Letter, June 17, 2024, Appendix – Modernizing the Federal Research Support System for Future Success: Engagement Parameters.

Discussion Questions

Based on the proposal above, and the parameters set out in the Budget 2024 announcement, feedback is sought on the following questions:

1. Alberta Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research SUPPORT Unit (AbSPORU)
2. Alliance of Canadian Comprehensive Research Universities (ACCRU)
3. Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC)
4. Association francophone pour le savoir (Acfas)
5. Black Nursing Faculty Group
6. Black Opportunity Fund Health Working Group
7. Bureau de coopération interuniversitaire (BCI)
8. Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA)
9. Canadian Association of Physicists
10. Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Administrators (CAPA)
11. Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars (CAPS)
12. Canadian Association of Research Administrators (CARA)
13. Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL)
14. Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT)
15. Canadian Brain Research Strategy
16. Canadian Cancer Research Alliance (CCRA)
17. Canadian Cardiovascular Society
18. Canadian Consortium for Researchers
19. Canada Council on Animal Care (CCAC)
20. Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)
21. Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR)
22. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Scientific Directors
23. Canadian Society for Brain, Behaviour, and Cognitive Science
24. Canadian Society for the Study of Names
25. Canadian Society of Medievalists
26. Canadian Society for Molecular Biosciences
27. Canadian Psychological Association
28. CANARIE
29. Can-SOLVE CKD SPOR Network
30. Cape Breton University
31. CHILD-BRIGHT SPOR
32. Children's Healthcare Canada and the Pediatric Chairs of Canada
33. Colleges and Institutes Canada (CICan)
34. Concordia University
35. Consortium Érudit
36. Council of Canadian Academies (CCA)
37. Council of Canadian Innovators
38. CS-CAN INFO-CAN Canadian Association for Computer Science
39. Dalhousie University
40. Diabetes Action Canada
41. Evidence for Democracy
42. Fédération des associations étudiantes du campus de l’Université de Montréal
43. Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (FHSS)
44. George Brown College
45. Genome Canada
46. Grand Challenges Canada
47. HealthCareCAN
48. Health Charities Coalition of Canada (HCCC)
49. Indigenous Leadership Circle in Research (ILCR)
50. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK)
51. Maternal Infant Child and Youth Research Network
52. McGill University
53. Mitacs
54. National Alliance of Provincial Health Research Organizations (NAPHRO)
55. Network of Networks (N2 Canada)
56. Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT)
57. Ontario Council on University Research (OCUR)
58. Ontario Hospital Association (OHA)
59. Ontario Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Support Unit
60. Ottawa Science Policy Network
61. Polytechnics Canada
62. Queens University
63. Regroupement étudiant de maîtrise, diplôme et doctorat (REMDUS) de l'Université de Sherbrooke
64. Research Canada
65. Research Universities’ Council of British Columbia (RUCBC)
66. RRC Polytech
67. Sinai Health
68. Six Nations Polytechnic
69. Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT)
70. SPOR SUPPORT Unit Council
71. Stem Cell Network (SCN)
72. Support Our Science (SOS)
73. Synchronex – Réseau des centres collégiaux de transfert de technologies et de pratiques sociales novatrices (CCTT)
74. Toronto Academic Health Sciences Network (TAHSN)
75. TRIUMF
76. U15
77. Union étudiante du Québec | Québec Student Union
78. Université de Montréal
79. Université du Québec
80. Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)
81. Université de Sherbrooke
82. Universities Canada
83. University of Alberta
84. University Health Network
85. The University of British Columbia
86. University of Guelph
87. University of Ottawa
88. University of Toronto
89. University of Victoria
90. University of Waterloo
91. The University of Winnipeg
92. Vancouver Island University
93. Western University
94. York University

The remaining 24 submissions (of a total of 118) were received from individuals.