Naylor Report

Naylor Report

The Naylor Report is a 2017 Canadian policy review produced by an advisory panel that evaluated federal support for fundamental research. Commissioned under the Justin Trudeau government and led by David Naylor, the panel delivered a set of recommendations aimed at reshaping federal funding delivered through institutions such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The report engaged actors across the University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia, the McGill University community and other major Canadian institutions, situating recommendations within wider international debates involving entities like the National Institutes of Health, the European Research Council and the UK Research and Innovation framework.

Background and context

The review emerged amid debates following budgetary decisions during the administrations of Stephen Harper and subsequent shifts under Justin Trudeau that affected agencies including the Tri-Council agencies and Crown corporations such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Triggered by concerns voiced at gatherings in the Royal Society of Canada and by leaders from Queen's University, McMaster University and the University of Alberta, the initiative responded to pressures from provincial ministries like the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and stakeholders connected to the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Canadian Federation of Students. International comparisons referenced reforms in the Germany Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the Australian Research Council and programmes in the United States Congress that shape the National Science Foundation.

Commission and authorship

The advisory panel was chaired by David Naylor and included members drawn from institutions such as Université de Montréal, Dalhousie University, Simon Fraser University and the University of Calgary. The panel convened experts who had previously advised bodies like the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation and boards of organizations including the Canada Research Chairs program. Administrative support involved officials from the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and consultations reached representatives from provincial systems exemplified by the British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education and the Québec Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur. The panel solicited testimony from leaders associated with the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation, philanthropic actors such as the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and corporate research divisions like those of Bombardier and TELUS.

Key findings and recommendations

The report identified chronic underinvestment in investigator-led research and recommended restoring purchasing power across federal research agencies to levels comparable with benchmarks set by the National Institutes of Health, the European Research Council and the German Research Foundation. It urged expansion of grants at institutions such as McGill University and University of Toronto while proposing governance changes to bodies like the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Recommended measures included creating new programs analogues to the Canada Foundation for Innovation and strengthening early-career support seen in models at Stanford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The panel called for enhanced coordination with provincial actors, referencing mechanisms similar to collaborative efforts between the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and the Canada Research Chairs program, and for metrics aligned with international standards from organizations like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Impact and implementation

Following release, elements of the panel's agenda influenced funding announcements under the Justin Trudeau administration and guided allocations to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. Universities including University of British Columbia, McMaster University and University of Ottawa reported changes in research support structures and internal strategies to align with the report's benchmarks. Policy actors from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council engaged in strategic planning processes reflecting recommendations. The report informed debate at national bodies such as the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences and discussions in the House of Commons of Canada where parliamentary committees scrutinized federal research investment trajectories and fiscal commitments.

Criticisms and controversy

Critics from groups including the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars and the Canadian Union of Public Employees argued some recommendations privileged elite institutions like University of Toronto and McGill University over smaller colleges and polytechnics such as Sheridan College and BCIT. Commentators in outlets linked to the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star questioned feasibility of funding increases set against federal fiscal constraints debated within the Department of Finance (Canada). Others noted that comparisons with entities such as the National Institutes of Health and the European Research Council neglected differing institutional histories and regional policies exemplified by the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario. Debates also surfaced about metrics and accountability, invoking critiques from scholars associated with York University and the University of Victoria who stressed alternative indicators used by bodies like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Category:Canadian public policy