Fundamental Science Review (Naylor Report)

Fundamental Science Review (Naylor Report)
Name	Fundamental Science Review
Alternative name	Naylor Report
Author	Naylor Committee
Language	English
Country	Canada
Published	2017–2018
Subject	Scientific research policy

Fundamental Science Review (Naylor Report) The Fundamental Science Review (commonly referred to as the Naylor Report) was a comprehensive assessment of Canada's basic research ecosystem led by an expert panel chaired by David Naylor. Commissioned to evaluate federal support for discovery-driven research and make policy recommendations, the review addressed funding agencies, research careers, and institutional stability. Its findings influenced federal decisions involving agencies and budgetary allocations and stimulated debate among academic leaders, scientific societies, and provincial stakeholders.

Background and Commissioning

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's administration commissioned the review following criticisms of declining support for investigator-led research and after consultations involving actors such as Canada Research Chairs Program, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The panel drew membership from figures affiliated with University of Toronto, McGill University, University of British Columbia, Université de Montréal, and McMaster University, and consulted with organizations including the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, and the Canadian Association of University Teachers. The review process paralleled other national assessments like the Boyer Commission and echoed international reports such as those by Royal Society (United Kingdom), National Academy of Sciences, and European Commission panels.

Key Recommendations

The panel urged restoration of sustained investments in investigator-led research, endorsement of the autonomy of the three federal granting councils—Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council—and creation of a new arm’s-length organization to oversee long-term research funding. It recommended improved support for early-career researchers and enhanced stability for infrastructure programs similar to those managed by Canada Foundation for Innovation and Tri-Council. The report emphasized metrics and evaluation reforms inspired by practices at Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and called for strengthening partnerships with entities such as Genome Canada, Mitacs, and provincial agencies like Ontario Research Fund.

Funding and Structural Reforms

Financial proposals included multi-year predictable funding increases to the three granting councils and establishment of a new independent body to manage a "Fund for Discovery Research" modeled on organizations like National Science Foundation and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The report advised reallocating existing program streams and creating endowment-like stability reminiscent of Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Wellcome Trust mechanisms. Structural reforms involved governance changes reflecting practices at Canada Foundation for Innovation and recommended synergy with national strategies such as those enacted by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and provincial ministries in Ontario, Québec, and British Columbia.

Implementation and Government Response

The federal response involved budgetary commitments in federal budgets and policy instruments managed by ministers including the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (Canada) and consultations with the Prime Minister's Office (Canada). Government actions included targeted increases to the budgets of Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and pilot programs to support early-career investigators. Implementation timelines intersected with agendas of institutions such as SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR and were influenced by intergovernmental negotiations involving Council of Ministers of Education, Canada and provincial cabinets in Alberta and Nova Scotia.

Reception and Impact

Academic leaders at University of Alberta, University of Waterloo, and Queen's University broadly welcomed the emphasis on investigator-driven research, while some departmental associations and unions like the Canadian Association of University Teachers raised concerns about allocation mechanics. Commentators from outlets tied to The Globe and Mail, National Post, and The Canadian Press debated priorities; policy analysts at institutes such as the Institute for Research on Public Policy and think tanks like the C.D. Howe Institute scrutinized costings and governance proposals. International observers compared the report to reviews from the Royal Society of Canada and the Science Council of Japan; philanthropic organizations including Lunenburg Foundation and health charities engaged in follow-up discussions.

Follow-up Reviews and Long-term Outcomes

Subsequent assessments by panels linked to Tri-Agency Institutional Programs Secretariat and audits by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada examined implementation fidelity, and longitudinal analyses by university research offices at Dalhousie University and University of Calgary tracked impacts on grant success rates and researcher career trajectories. The report catalyzed legislative and budgetary debates in sessions of the House of Commons of Canada and informed strategic plans at canonical institutions including Library and Archives Canada and the National Research Council (Canada). Over the longer term, metrics such as international collaboration indices tracked by OECD and citation analyses by groups like Clarivate and Scopus offered empirical evidence to evaluate the review’s legacy.

Category:Canadian science policy