Why we need CIHR???
forsdyke at post.queensu.ca
Tue Jan 19 10:06:44 EST 1999
Agreeing with all the points made so far by CARRF members, I would
add that this seems to be another example of the USA knowing best. The
syllogism seems to be:
The USA has a "National Institutes" system. The USA research
system is highly productive. Therefore, if we set up a "National
Institutes" system, we will be productive! Q. E. D.
If we are going to copy, perhaps we should copy in the proportion
of our gross national product spent on research?
Sincerely, Donald Forsdyke
At 07:46 PM 1/18/99 -0500, you wrote:
Canadian medical research is supported BY DEFINITION
by Medical Research Council (MRC).
Anyone with common sense who reads the attached
message can justifiably wonder why any OTHER medical
research supporting-agency (like CIHR in this case)
is need at first place???
In other words, what CIHR can do (or accomplish)
which MRC (presumably) can not?
(provided, of course, that the MRC budget is
increased by the same amount what [ presumably ]
is expected to be raised for CIHR)?
Why TWO ("COMPETING"? , "COOPERTATING"?) BUREAUCRACIES
is better than just one?
Unless CLEAR and CONVINCING answers to these
questions can be provided, the whole exercise
seems pointless. Specifically, people would like
to be shown a SINGLE EXAMPLE of research-related
"SOMETHING", which can be accomplished through
CIHR, but which CAN NOT (by definition) be
accomplished through the (already existing) MRC.
Can we have such an example, please?
(desirably given by scientists and not by
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Richard Gordon wrote:
More information about the Jrnlnote