Many thanks to our colleague David Wehlau, Professor of Mathematics at Queen’s University, for compiling the following data comparing average Discovery Grants, their numbers, as well as the available funding for each of the NSERC-supported disciplines. The data, which covers the 2008 and 2010 competitions shows an incredible discrepancy between the disciplines. David highlights the plight of the Math/Stats community, but the bottom line is that the total budget for the Discovery Grants has been idle for years, and NSERC has already announced that the support for basic research will be cut by $14.5 million over the next three years. See the 2010–2011 Report on Plans and Priorities and NSERC’s response to our post “Time to draw a line in the sand”.
The data shows that in 2010 the average grant in Mathematics and Statistics ($19,656) is no more than 57% of the average of non-Math/Stats disciplines ($34,509). Moreover, the average grant in analytical & physical chemistry ($48K in 2010) is more than twice as high as the average in the mathematical sciences. Math & Stats hold about 9.3% of the total NSERC grants, but carry approximately 5.5% of NSERC funding. Here is the spreadsheet.
The problem is that the differences in the “cost of research” between disciplines do not justify these discrepancies, since most of the grants are used nowadays to pay HQPs (not equipment) whose salaries are very comparable. A friend who is a Dean of Science has the following possible explanation.
“Graduate students in chemistry are much more likely to be totally supported by their supervisor’s grant with little or no TA duties; while a math grad student might get a third of the support from the supervisor and then have 6 or 8 hours of TA duties per week. Chemists are almost militant in keeping their grad students on task of their thesis research full time. The results are relatively more research from the lab (a good thing) and relatively less teaching experience and training for the student (a bad thing).
In a sense, the historical funding level has led to different cultures in the support and training of graduate students in different disciplines. I do not see an intrinsic reason why it is good for math students to do more TA work than chemistry students.”
We also have some data –to be published later– showing that other G7 countries may not have as large a relative difference in funding levels between disciplines, which could be further evidence that NSERC has had the balance wrong for years.
But we might be getting ahead of ourselves since, “The Minister of Industry, on behalf of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), asked the Council of Canadian Academies to examine the international practices and supporting evidence used to assess performance of research in the natural sciences and engineering disciplines.”
The panel (chaired by former NSF Director, Rita Colwell) will examine approaches used to evaluate research performance and indicators that enable comparisons across areas of research. It will NOT recommend any re-allocation of funds between disciplines. NSERC staff will!
Indeed, NSERC wrote (see comments) that it “plans to use these indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, to develop a new method of allocating funds among Evaluation Groups that could be implemented in 2013.”