Read on Twitter
I'm going to interpret @JeffKinder10's question at #SSH20 earlier today as two questions. First, why does Canada currently have three granting agencies? Second, should Canada have three granting agencies? 1/ https://twitter.com/JonRTurner/status/1316834834979880960
A century ago we were about as close as we've ever been to a single (federal) granting agency when @NRC_CNRC was created.
This statement comes with several caveats, that I'll explain before moving on. 2/
This statement comes with several caveats, that I'll explain before moving on. 2/
First caveat - post-secondary education is a provincial mandate. It's a whole other thread on how and why the federal government is invested in research in post-secondary institutions. 3/
Second caveat - the NRC might have had the most robust support for research, but it was never alone. Many government departments funded research, something we'll come back to in a few tweets. 4/
Back to our story. When the NRC was created it had three responsibilities. 1) Funding research in both industry and post-secondary institutions via grants. Of which there were two types in PSE - faculty grants (that covered equipment and students) and student fellowships. 5/
Brief tangent - I've read a lot of grant applications to NRC and DRB that cover a roughly 50 year period, and postdocs aren't a thing in that period. So I'd put postdocs as a thing that started happening after 1975, but I could be wrong. 6/
2) The NRC was responsible for running their own research program at labs across the country. 3) NRC was responsible for providing scientific and science policy advice to the government. 7/
Did we mention that NRC was, and there's conflicting stories on its prehistory, born out of the scientific necessities of the First World War? So we have the NRC and they do their three things, some would argue a bit directionlessly, until the Second World War. 8/
In the roughly 20 year period surrounding the build-up to the Second World War through to the Korean War Canada's support for science was the closest to technocracy it is ever going to be with CD Howe and CJ Mackenzie. 9/
Two men, and maybe about 25 of their close colleagues, had near complete autonomy and authority over science policy and science funding.
And here, coming back to a question that's come up a lot at #SSH20 we're really talking about the narrow version of science - just STEM. 10/
And here, coming back to a question that's come up a lot at #SSH20 we're really talking about the narrow version of science - just STEM. 10/
So, needless to say, nothing lasts forever in politics. Howe lost his seat, and Mackenzie, eventually, did too. The new Diefenbaker government undertook a thorough review of government organization - led by Glassco. 11/
Glassco flagged that three-pronged responsibility of the NRC as odd. Mackenzie was asked about it, and agreed. 12/
So at lightning speed (i.e. roughly a decade) the NRC's responsibility for science advising was transferred to the Science Council (see @JeffKinder10's writings on this) and the Science Secretariat. 13/
In parallel to this review, there were some questions about who was and who wasn't getting federal funding. 14/
In several examples, some successful & savvy researchers received funding from the NRC and the Defence Research Board (an offshoot of the NRC after WW2 - https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/71816) and other federal departments. Essentially triple-dipping. 15/
Meanwhile, other researchers, who weren't connected to the members of grant reviewing committees, were receiving nothing.
Did we mention that personal connections were (and are) essential in these processes? 16/
Did we mention that personal connections were (and are) essential in these processes? 16/
It was such a small circle of grant-reviewers that someone, either during a formal meeting or at the Club obviously mentioned that they'd reviewed the same grant for multiple depts, and the NRC and DRB eventually pulled themselves together to negotiate a few joint contracts. 17/
But the duplication was impossible to ignore, and so the Medical Research Council was born out of the medical research granting committees of the DRB, NRC and other govt depts. This is now @CIHR_IRSC the first of the three granting agencies. 18/
Around the same time that the Science Council and Science Secretariat were created, there was another round of reviews of science policy, science funding, and science organization - this time led by Senator Lamontagne. 19/
And, again at the lightning Ottawa speed of a decade, that review eventually led to the government pulling the funding function away from the NRC and DRB and other government departments and turning it over to @NSERC_CRSNG & @SSHRC_CRSH 20/
That's the very short history of why we have three funding councils in Canada where much of that responsibility used to rest with the National Research Council. 21/
One thing that hasn't changed much is the fact that multiple federal govt depts can, and do, fund research directly to post-secondary institutions and industry above and beyond what flows through the Tricouncil. 22/
(Yes, that's a whole other thread on why Canada, both the govt and the country, spends so much on post-secondary research and so little on industry research.) 23/
Now to the second version of the question. Should Canada have three funding agencies? 24/
Let's go back to something I said earlier, and something that has come up a few times at #SSH20 - the definition of science. I'm a bit fuzzier on the pre-history of SSRHC, but everything I've been talking about is STEM funding and STEM policy. 25/
Psychology sneaks in as the only thing that might be considered a social science or might be considered a natural science, and that's because the DRB was interested in deprogramming research out of fear the Communists had mastered mind control. 26/
We're also talking about a period when big science grants from the Canadian government could be measured in the tens of thousands of dollar. I'd be curious how much social sciences and humanities projects cost in this period, but I'm guessing we're talking hundreds, tops. 27/
The sheer cost of doing impactful research in STEM compared to SSH is one very good reason to keep those budgets separate. If SSH are always fighting for the pocket change leftover to balance a budget after the big science projects are funded, that ain't going to be great. 28/
Another thing to come back to is the Tricouncil's ability to lead change. Someone today suggested that if the Tricouncil changes how they measure impact, researchers will adapt and follow the money. 29/
Researchers, at least the ones who are in faculty positions, are very good at following the money. Adapting to current circumstances, etc. 30/
But, that's not something the Tricouncil can do without consensus. In this case, that consensus requires federal politicians and bureaucrats, provincial counterparts (because PSE is provincial), and the researchers and research institutions themselves. 31/
Howe and Mackenzie could maybe have secured that consensus in the 1940s and 50s, but that consensus is a lot harder to build now. It took 20 years to separate out the three functions of the NRC in the 60s and 70s, I think we can conservatively double or triple that now. 32/
So, clearly, from a practical standpoint I don't think we can merge the Tricouncil into a single funding agency, and I have reservations about whether we should (though I'm not concerned about the 60s separation of advising and funding functions). 33/
But, again, drawing from some of the great ideas at #SSH20, I would love to see funding agencies that prioritize novel concepts and metrics for impact, and I'd love to see more collaboration between researchers across disciplines. 34/
Collaborative research that will truly address grand challenges like the Sustainable Development Goals will take time - time where researchers won't be able to hit their productivity metrics. 35/
I'm here for that better version of the world, that more collaborative, mindful, and less focused on productivity version of the world. 36/
And I know we don't have time to solve things like the Climate Crisis or the Equity Crisis, but I also know how long it takes to change cultures within the research community. 37/
If it takes a revolution at the Tricouncil to make that culture change immediately, and the best way forward is a single granting agency (that addresses all the practical reservations), then I'm in. I want to live in that world where we've solved the grand challenges. 38/38
