Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.

Site Tools

  • AAAS
  • Subscribe
  • Feedback

Site Search

Search Advanced

Science 23 November 2001:
Vol. 294. no. 5547, p. 1635
DOI: 10.1126/science.294.5547.1635c

ScienceScope

It's pretty hard to argue with a commitment to research excellence. Or more interdisciplinary collaborations, or helping underserved populations. So the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) won't need to spend much time defending its new suggestions for strengthening the country's health research.

But CIHR president Alan Bernstein warns scientists that these fuzzy generalities may take on a harder edge when used for judging funding proposals. "If someone puts forward a large initiative that doesn't fall into these [categories], they'll have to articulate a clear reason why it should be considered," Bernstein says.

In particular, Bernstein suggests that biomedical scientists figure out how to take advantage of hot areas such as bioinformatics and combinatorial chemistry. "This is, to some extent, my own view of where the action is going to be," he says. Whatever idea they pitch, he adds, researchers should spell out how it will "build Canada's international leadership through national excellence in health research."





ADVERTISEMENT
Click Me!

ADVERTISEMENT
Click Me!

To Advertise     Find Products


Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)