NSERC CRD Information Session

Recommendations from an NSERC Peer Review Committee Member

Dr. Paul Dick, NSERC CRD Peer Review Committee Member

February 19, 2015Guelph, Ontario

2

1. Advisory Committee on University-Industry Grants (ACUIG)

2. Review Process: Things to Focus On

3. Don’t do the Following

4. Questions / Additional Comments

Agenda

3

Reviews/ approves CRDs and Industry Research Chairs

Interdisciplinary researchers and technical experts from across Canada

Four meetings per year (March, June, September, December) 

Extensive pre-read, including Site Visit Committee report (for CRDs above $ 200 K +/ yr)

ACUIG reviewed proposals requesting $ 150 K +/ yr

Advisory Committee on University- Industry Grants (ACUIG)

4

Chaired and facilitated by NSERC Director

NSERC Manager reviews each file and the findings of the Site Visit Committee, including its recommendations

Excellent committee interchange including request for clarification, comments to the application, indication of support and lack of support for the CRD

Vote called following discussion for each application- all review committee members to vote (apart from those with a conflict, that are not part of the discussion)

Advisory Committee on University- Industry Grants (ACUIG)

5

Broad support of various stages of academic/ industry related research

Truly collaborative- a win / win partnership

Industrial and economic benefits to Canada to be clearly demonstrated

Industry partner must be an active participant from project design to exploration of the results

Partner must contribute at least 50 % of NSERC request in cash, the balance as in-kind

Natural science (life science/ biological science or physical science) or engineering

Review Process: “Things to Focus On"

6

Evidence of detailed planning and sound budget justification

Well defined assumptions, approaches, milestones and deliverables

Scientific merit- technically feasible, generates new knowledge or applies existing knowledge in an innovative manner

Research team competency and expertise to successfully complete the project

Contributions to HQP training- student training component critical

Review Process: “Things to Focus On"

7

Incomplete or overly ambitious projects

Budget justification lacking

Focus on an existing technology and "routine analysis"

Operate as a CRO or provide a consulting service

Training of HQPs lacking

Lack of a real/ strong industrial partner that will exploit the study findings

Don't do the Following

8

Questions/ Additional Comments