friday afternoon quick analysis of larger uni dataset (sorry can’t show) fall 2021-fall 2024 = 18% increase in CIHR PG registrations fall 2024-fall 2026 = 33.5% increase nearly twice the rate in only 2 years. 😳

for CIHR Project Grants, eligible faculty can register, as lead applicant, to submit 2 grants/competition (x2 comps /yr). This “rule” is set by CIHR, not by universities. Universities make sure grants are eligible, adhere to regulations, commitments etc. then sign off/submit once approved

Neuroinflammation may contribute to maternal anhedonia by disrupting dopamine-dependent reward circuitry.

definitely haven’t seen this in our data (our institute holds 1 in 4 of ubc’s cihr project grants)

new, important thread 👇

Yeah it is a genuine mystery, so I really don't like this consultation on solutions to a problem that hasn't been adequately defined.

This would be the worst possible outcome! Any ideas that folks have about specialized programs are almost always self-serving and further entrench inequities! Keep the money in the open project competition and find/advocate for new money for your pet projects!

But app volume on its own does not justify rethinking how we evaluate grants, and it **certainly** doesn't justify reallocating funds to specialized programs based on topic or goals.

Indeed the biggest problem. Also see 🧵from the top.

And this is biggest concern...it is a terrible idea to break up Project based on topic/goal for all the reasons this is always a bad idea: rewarding insiders and agenda-setters for program design, duplicating bureaucracy, and worst of all increasing applicant and reviewer burden even more.

I would be cautiously sympathetic and open to attempts to control app volume in ways that do not restrict opportunities for PIs who need funding.

CIHR bureaucratic capacity is not a fixed constant. We're talking about the federal government. If they want to turn grant peer review into the CRA call centre, they can, or they can fund it adequately.