CIHR's Second Brainstorming Session:
Summary of some of the major points
Message from the President of CIHR
On August 13-14, I had the pleasure of hosting CIHR's Second Annual Brainstorming Session with 34 researchers from across Canada, and from various disciplines across the four pillars of health research- biomedical, clinical, health systems and services, population health, social and cultural dimensions of health and environmental influences on health. At this session, which generated a lot of excellent discussions and outstanding suggestions, we received views on CIHR activities in its first year and advice on future directions for CIHR.
Attached please find a summary of the major points that were raised and discussed. I would like to thank everyone who participated in this session. Your input was very important and CIHR hopes to move forward on many of the recommendations that were brought forward.
If you have any question on the attached document or if you would like to provide your input on some of these issues, please e-mail us at info@cihr-irsc.gc.ca.
- CIHR'S FIRST YEAR
- Positive
For researchers with a community focus, greater acceptance, facilitated partnership with other agencies
Greater visibility of CIHR through e.g., Scientific Director visits
For some researchers without a "home" in the MRC peer review structure (e.g., musculoskeletal, reproduction), Institutes provide a much-needed focus
- Negative
Poor communications on how CIHR works, e.g., role of Institutes in peer review; how priorities for RFAs are set
Lack of information on functions of Institutes and meaning of affiliation
Rushed application processes
Concerns about "dividing the pie into more pieces" with expansion of mandate
- Recommended Actions for CIHR
Communicate better and actively to research community, don't rely so much on passive medium of web pages (e.g., send e-mails when RFAs are announced)
Institutes inform specific research communities of plans and activities, priority-setting processes
More networking activities for researchers, e.g., workshops, but keep costs low by taking advantage of major meetings which people will attend anyway
Communications need to involve all investigators, not only PIs, and also the researchers not funded by CIHR at present
A regularized process, with sane deadlines, for responding to RFAs
- Positive
- THE INSTITUTES
- Role
As the meeting place for cognate research community and other organizations
As the arena for setting the national health research agenda
As an authoritative voice on research issues for public and policymakers
- Institutes and Peer Review
Separation of Institutes and peer review process generally supported: "checks and balances"
Institutes should play consultative role in determining mandates and composition of peer review committees
Partial alignment of individual peer review committees with Institute mandates is acceptable when this makes sense scientifically
- Recommended Actions for Institutes
Explain better their processes for priority-setting: greater transparency and opportunities for researcher input
Develop ways to add value to research community (e.g., networking, funding opportunities, lobbying efforts) which will motivate researchers to engage with the Institute
- Role
- CRYSTAL BALL GAZING
- What do you want CIHR to be?
- Five years from now
Canada the "place to be" for health research: funding and recognition of research and researchers as good or better than other first-world nations
"User-friendly" stable funding: longer, bigger grants, less time writing multiple applications, more time doing research. Coordinated application funding and processes among agencies
Canadians recognize and can point to positive impacts of health research on their heath.
National pride in Canadian research achievements and its high ethical standards
A holistic, integrated, approach to health research, with breakdown of traditional discipline-specific barriers, through improvements in opportunities for networking and collaboration
- Some steps for getting there
Training Program Grants an excellent start: a break from the traditional unidisciplinary focus during training phase
Clarify role of CIHR and other agencies in career support, but maintain strong career support programs - for all career phases
Re-invigorate clinical research and clinical research careers
Improve public visibility of CIHR: feed the hunger of Canadians, particularly those accessing health services, for the latest authoritative information on health research. Enhance information partnerships with voluntary agencies. Begin outreach programs to schools
Young health researchers should consider organizing to promote networking, outreach, and advocacy
- Five years from now
- COLLABORATIVE AND INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
- Impediments
A peer review structure not optimally suited to review multidisciplinary proposals
Different attitudes towards value of collaborative research in the four CIHR themes
Undue emphasis in academic reward systems on the PI, and undervaluing of contributions of others
Young researchers feel they must establish independent reputation before involvement in collaborative research
Sometimes difficult for junior investigators to get invited into collaborative projects involving senior investigators
- Recommended actions for CIHR
Hold a dialogue with academic leaders to resolve the disconnect between CIHR goals of encouraging collaboration, and the reward systems of academia
Make changes to the operating grants program, including peer review, which encourage more small-scale, multidisciplinary, collaborative project applications
Permit multiple co-PIs on grant applications
Encourage inclusion of junior members on collaborative projects of various types
Increase opportunities for networking among junior investigators
- Impediments
- THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
Dr. Bernstein discussed CIHR's overarching values:
Excellence in a robust research environment
A strategic approach to research, taking into account:
scientific opportunities
Canadian research strengths
emerging health challenges
the broader Canadian agenda for social and economic development
Partnership and public engagement
Knowledge translation, to health practitioners, public, policymakers and industry
Global recognition as a model of a national health research organization
and his thoughts on the broad CIHR research agenda:
International leadership through national excellence in health research
Integrating all approaches to health research (biomedical, natural and social sciences, humanities, mathematics, engineering)
The health status of unique populations
Health research and health care in the genomics era
Comments
In setting its research agenda, CIHR must listen regularly to the needs of Canadians, and of health- care providers. Outreach is a two-way process
- CIHR's priority-setting processes must be transparent, open and responsive to all inputs, and free of perceptions of conflict-of-interest
- CIHRshould consider how it is involved in the resolution of "cultural diseases" such as poverty, violence, and racism, which have a huge impact on health
- OTHER IMPORTANT ADVICE
Proliferation of federal funding agencies: Is it the most productive approach for increasing impact of federal research dollars?
Broadened eligibility for CIHR funding requires appreciation of nonacademic career pathways and contributions: application forms and peer review process must reflect this
Future allocation of funding to investigator-initiated and strategic research streams should be based on an ongoing evaluation of the "impact" of each stream
- CIHRmust listen to those unsuccessful in funding competitions: they will have important suggestions for change
Provide more opportunities for young researchers to participate in peer review
