RT @CDNScience@twitter.com
@HorizonEU@twitter.com @EUScienceInnov@twitter.com @vestager@twitter.com @GabrielMariya@twitter.com (2/2) Association with the EU’s funding program would allow Canada to showcase its research strength on the international stage and work with partners on solutions to global challenges like #ClimateChange.
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/CDNScience/status/1597966809076203526
Canadian scientist are already "allowed" to collaborate internationally, and in fact do so quite prolifically. We don't need more things to apply for to increase our international profile and collabs, we need Tricouncil open programs to grow. @CDNScience@twitter.com
@CDNScience@twitter.com "Good News! More grant applications to write for over-specificed programs with even more bureaucracy and low, low success rates."
I remain flabbergasted that policymakers think scientist are sitting around, wishing they could pursue an exciting collaboration with an overseas colleague, but we don't because the grants we have don't have "international" or "collaboration" in the description.
My suspicion is that when they want to know how much scientists collaborate, they define "collaboration" exclusively as research done by grants awarded to multiple PIs.
If there is one thing I wish science policymakers understood, it is that NONE of their favorite buzzwords--innovative, collaborative, international, high risk, transformative, etc--can be coherently used to describe funding mechanisms. These aren't labels you can put on money.
@mhendricks nor can the favourite Uber-term, excellence
