Excerpts Proposed Governance Structure CIHR

Note: IMPORTANT POINTS ARE BOLDED.
These notes help understand the implications of the new structures

FROM  CIHR Web Site LIBRARY / Proposed Governance Structure for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research

5.2     Inclusivity and Balance Among Health Research Segments

The CIHR Task Force has identified four primary divisions or segments of health research.  These are:

Biomedical;
AppliedClinical;
Health Services and Health Systems; and,
Society, Culture and Health of Population.

It was evident in virtually every discussion on the CIHR that health research must generally be inclusive of all divisions.  This is perhaps the most important early challenge for the CIHR and there is a view, particularly among social scientists, that special attention needs to be given to ensure that the necessary inclusiveness is achieved that is considered to be critical for the success of the CIHR.

The proposals for achieving that balance include one or a combination of the following:

Have the social science community represented directly on the Board of Directors of the CIHR;
* Establish Divisions under the Board of Directors along the lines of social science and biomedical research;
*Incorporate, within the charter of the CIHR, that all research Institutes must be integrative of the various divisions (note that issues such as care-giving are common to many Institutes);
* Mandate that Institutes spend a set percentage of their budget (say 10%-25%) on social science; and/or,
*Require Institutes to report to the Board of Directors on their success at being integrative.

5.3    Building Capacity

Among the objectives of the Task Force for the CIHR is to develop a greater capacity in all areas of health research.  This includes the whole spectrum of human resource development such as: support for graduate student research; scholarships; and, development of basic research skills and the support of mentors (the type one might expect from "chairs" at universities or research institutes).  It is a recognition of the base of sldlls that exists today, and filling in the gaps where appropriate.  Capacity also refers to the various divisions of science that are relatively developed (many social scientists place themselves in this category).  The methods mentioned for addressing capacity are:

* Etablish Divisions to monitor and develop social science research;
* Establish Institutes with a pure mandate of developing social scientists (for any area where capacity is thought to be lacking);
*Give each Institute the responsibility of addressing these second-level goals through their on-going activities and reward those Institutes who are successful in meeting these goals.

5.6    The Formation of Research Institutes

The most common vision of the formation of Institutes is one where a governing Board or Council forges a strategic map comprising 10-15 Institutes to cover the full domain of health research.

 To be truly inclusive, the social science community advocates Institutes that are not just "disease-based" but cover many of the population health and health service divisions.

5.10 Peer Review

Peer review is considered to be a fundamental plank in the structure of the CIHR by all participants and a key determinant of excellence in research.

Peer review exists in the federal research councils as well as the health charities.  It was suggested that the ultimate peer review structure adopted for the CIHR should represent the best of what exists today, regardless of origin.

What is open for discussion, however, is the form that peer review would take in a multi- disciplinary organization with integration and inclusiveness ingrained in its culture.  To encourage cross cutting and integrative research, it was suggested that certain peer review conunittees have a composition that is broader than strictly the science it represents.

from   #7- PROPOSED GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE CIHR

Separate Entity and Charter

Once the CIHR is fully implemented it must act as an entity separate from the existing research councils to be truly transforinative.

It is likely that the CIHR would become a Part II corporation, the same category that holds the existing research councils.  Part II corporations are designed for activities where decision making is made at arm's length from government and political influence.  The financial and human resource provisions of government departments are usually followed unless an Act of Parliament provides specific exemptions.  The functions of Part II corporations are normally adminis@ve, research, supervisory, advisory or regulatory.

To gain the confidence of the entire health research community, and to provide an important guide for decision making in the CIHR, a clear, unambiguous and directions] charter or mission is required.  A useful starting point for the charter is the statement of guiding principles for the CIHR approved by the Task Force.  These are:

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

-Establish national research priorities which are linked with Canadian health policies and complement the provincial investment in research, education and health; -
Encompass and support the full spectrum of health research - from basic science to clinical research to population health, recognizing the important role of investigator-initiated research;
-Ensure Canadian researchers succeed in the worldwide research community through: the application of peer-review as fundamental to the evaluation of research excellence; and, internationally competitive levels of funding;
-Encourage individual Institutes within the network to conduct unique programs - from capacity-building to third party partnerships - in pursuit of the goals of improved national health and well-being;
-Collaborate with all organizations that have demonstrated a capacity to support or conduct health research.  CIHR supports and recognizes the major contributions to health research by voluntary health organizations, provincial granting bodies and individual research centres; and,
-Recognize and support the central role that universities and associated health science centres play in education, training and in creating interdisciplinary opportunities.

It will be helpful to those drafting the charter for the CIFIR to have a well articulated process for its development.  The charter is a critical document and will help to continuously bond the broad coalition who have come together under the banner of the CIHR.

Governing Council

At the top of the corporation of the CIHR will be the Governing Council.  This title is used over the term Board of Directors which suggests a business or profit orientation.  The Council members will have decision making and oversight authority in the following areas:

-Strategic direction;
-Appointment of the president;
-Approval of senior management positions as recommended by the president;
-Approve the appointment of Institute Directors as nominated by the president;
-Establish Institutes.  Make changes in Institutes based on priorities and accomplishments as determined by periodic review;
-Establish policies for partnerships for the CIRR and its Institutes;
-Establish the Peer Review system;
-Monitor the organization's performance
-Conduct a comprehensive periodic peer review assessment of each Institute (say every five years);
-Appoint Advisory Boards for each Institute;
-Approve the allocation of funding to research Institutes; and,
-Respond to issues raised by the NEnister of Health.

In making these decisions, the GC would be guided by the corporate charter as well as the best interests of all Canadians.

The GC would be independent of management, independent of research Institutes and have the credibility to manage the competitive pressures that will naturally exist around research Institutes.

Since the CIHR is expected to be funded exclusively with federal dollars, all or a majority of the appointments to the GC would be made by Order-in-Council (OIC).  The process for appointments should seek to minimize political influence and focus on the quality of the candidate, giving due regard to gender, region and language.  An open process may be appropriate: all may apply and advertisements could be placed to encourage candidates to come forward.  A nominating committee could be appointed by the NEnister of Health who would help identify the qualities required for the GC and to forward a list of possible candidates.  Such a comn-iittee could be representative of the entire spectrum of health research interests, perhaps along the lines of the CIHR Task Force, yet fewer in number (perhaps 12).  Consideration should be given to having OIC appointments for the majority of Council members, who in turn would appoint the remaining members.  This two-step process has the potential to reduce the political influence in the appointment process and allow the GC to strategically compose itself to address current priorities.

Council members must have a clear understanding of their responsibilities and authority.  A job description and orientation session for all council members is appropriate.

The members of the GC must be wise, knowledgeable, capable of making difficult decisions and not have a particular vested interest in the activities of any of the research Institutes.  One can envision a Board with a balance of scientists and non-scientists.

It is recommended that members of the GC sit at the pleasure of the government for staggered term of three years.  The stagger of terms would be such that a majority of the GC do not have expiring terms in the same year.

The Chair of the GC would be independent of management.  This individual would be specifically designated among the appointments by OIC.  The GC could elect a vice-chair who would handle the chairs responsibilities in the absence of the chair.  We recommend that the Chair of the GC and the President of the CIHR not be held by the same individual.

The GC will need to have a sufficient number of positions to give voice to a variety of perspectives, yet not be so large as to become unwieldy and incapable of team work.  An appropriate number would be in the range of 15 to 19 to include both distinguished scientists and leaders from the public at large.  The GC should not be dominated by a large number of researchers who might otherwise be aligned with particular interests or Institutes.  GC members would need to be of such quality and perspective that they could exclusively represent the organization as a whole.  In addition to the President of the CIHR who would sit on the Governing Council ex officio, the members of the GC could include the following individuals:

-Distinguished scientists;
-Leaders from health charities;
-Financial management experts (relevancy to health research);
-Industry experts (perhaps from the pharmaceutical sector);
-Academics (those knowledge about research methods yet with a sufficiently broad perspective as to not have a bias towards a particular stream of science)
-Thinkers on ethical issues;
-Civic minded Canadians; and,
-Accomplished young Canadians.

The description of GC members might suggest a collection of older distinguished individuals which is not intended to be the case.  One of the concerns that the CIHR will attempt to address is the "brain drain".  For that reason, and the need to make the CIHR as relevant as possible to the general public, it is desirable to have an appropriate number of younger Canadians on the GC.  This could include one of the many "promising young Canadians" that frequently get mentioned for their remarkable achievements in academics, business or the humanities.

It may be too constricting to require that the OC follow a strict pattern of composition as is suggested in the above categories.  It may be sufficient to attach explanatory notes to documents creating the CIHR to serve as a guide to those involved in filling the positions on the GC.  These notes would also be useful to those who want to hold the government accountable for the quality of its appointments.

Ile GC would benefit from continuous exposure to officials in government with an interest in health research.  Government researcher leaders would similarly benefit from regular exposure to the inner working of the @, particularly as they grapple each year with the funding envelope.  For this reason, it is recommended that the Deputy Nfinisters of Health and Industry, and the chairs of the research councils with significant health research responsibilities sit on the GC as ex officio non-voting members.  Although non-voting, they would have full privileges to participate in GC meetings.

It is worth noting that it is recommended that the GC appoint the President, rather than the NEnister of Health through the Govemor-in-Council.  There are many valid reasons for having the Nfinister (or Prime Nfinister) make the appointment, largely in terms of the political accountability (this is what is effectively followed with the existinc, research councils).  On the other hand, the GC is also accountable to the government.  If the Mnister were to make all appointments, one needs to consider the impact this has on the relationship between the GC and the President.  The authority of the GC might well be diminished if the President considers his/her primary line of accountability is to the Nfinister.  This blurs the line of accountability between the GC and the President and establishes the potential for unproductive conflict.  On balance, we recommend that the lines of responsibility and accountability be clear and that the GC should have the authority to appoint the President.

Other than administration and the allocation of funds to Institutes, the GC would generally not spend funds.  There may well be, however, urgent matters or a crisis that demands a health research response.  Because it may involve an emerging issue, research Institutes may not be equipped or sufficiently flexible to immediately respond.  In this circumstance it may be appropriate to provide the GC with a reserve or contingency which could be applied to urgent matters.

Institutes

Institutes would be formed by the GC to cover the full domain of health research.  It will be important for the GC to first establish a broadly acceptable process for nominating Institutes, partly to achieve the best results, and partly to deal with the inevitable objections and controversy that will be raised.  While some Institutes will have a natural tendency towards a particular segment of science, it will be a requirement that each Institute give adequate consideration to the four identified divisions of science.

Once an Institute is named and defined, the GC would appoint a Scientific Director.  The Director would be full-time with an appointed term of 3 -5 years.  This position requires an individual with a strategic mind, a good sense of politics, communication skills and leadership qualities.  Beneath the scientific director would be a minimal level of administrative support, sufficient to deal with the Directors needs for time management, meeting organization, reporting obligations, budget submissions and correspondence.

The Institute itself will be focused on funding the research projects that provide the best long term value to Canadians.  Excellence in research will be accomplished through the process of peer review.

INSTITUTE ADVISORY BOARD

Providing important overall strategic advice to the Director and GC will be an Institute Advisory Board.  Each Institute would have its own Advisory Board.  The IAB would be appointed by the GC through an open nomination process.  The Board itself will include a broad representation of knowledgeable and active health researchers and organizations.  To promote the integration of research across Institutes, and an appropriate balance among the divisions of science, each IAB should have some broad representation.  Since they have an advisory rather than decision making role, the notion of independence, and the need to avoid conflict, is diminished.  Each IAB would be supported by the central CIHR secretariat.  The size and functioning of each Advisory Board may vary, although they would generally be expected to undertake the following responsibilities:

-Advise the Director on policies and priorities;
-Provide advice to the GC as requested or as they deem appropriate;
-Provide advice to the GC on the composition and functioning of the peer review conunittees;
-Review Institute performance and financial results;
-Review budget submissions;
-Advise the Director on policies related to research funding; and,
-Advise the Director on administrative matters and resources.
 
While the responsibilities suggest that the IAB would have not the authority to make decisions, they are nonetheless a key component of the decision making process.  A Scientific director would be taking an enormous risk by not appropriately considering the advice offered by the relevant IAB.  First, they are key members of the community in which research is undertaken and would generally presumed to be offering profitable advice.  Second, they will have a direct line of connnunication to the GC.  In fact, the GC secretariat will also be the resource that serves the IABS.

To encourage integration and coordination, it would be appropriate to promote discussion among the Scientific Directors.  This may be accomplished at periodic meetings of the CIHR that all Scientific Directors and management would attend.

Peer Review

The peer review process is critical to the success of the CIHR.  For peer review to drive excellence if research, the peer review structure, support and mandate must be similarly excellent.

The CIHR should assess all methods of peer review and seek to use the best practices available.  The Peer Review structure would operate outside of the individual Institutes and would be supported by the corporate secretariat The ultimate responsibility for the Peer Review structure is assigned to the GC.

The CIHR is proposed as an integrative and inclusive institution.  This suggests the peer review committees be similarly innovative and integrative.  Some comniittees should seek to be innovative and include a broad cmss section of members in a way that encourages researchers to be similarly multidisciplinary.  That does not imply, however, that the CIHR would not also fund discrete research projects.

Management

The GC will require. support and management leadership to carry out its directives.  While the GC will make the ultimate determinations as to the most appropriate management structure, it is likely to include the following senior management positions:
 

President
Appointed by the GC, the president would lead the organization and likely speak on behalf of the CIHR.  This individual would be an accomplished scientist with superior communication and political skills

Chief Financial Officer
Responsible for internal financial information and external financial reporting.  Also develops the appropriate internal controls.  Internal reporting would provide Institutes with relevant project data.

Director of Programs
Deals with all Institutes and is responsible for supporting the system of Peer Review.

Chief Informatics Officer
Responsible for data base, systems, and information management.

Director of Policy and Strategic Planning
Develops policies for the organization as a whole including research Institutes.  This office would oversee the overall corporate and Institute planning process and have specific responsibilities for integration and inclusiveness at the Institute level.  Specifically, this office would encourage and report on the extent to which each of the Institutes appropriately embraces the four divisions of science as specified in the corporate charter.  This office could also consider the issues associated with ethics in research.

Director of Communications
This individual will be responsible for internal and external communication.  The recognition of the CIHR for its activities would be one of the priorities for this position.

Director of Partnerships and Business Development
This office will seek to broaden the participation in CIHR funded research and help link the public, voluntary and private sector links.

Corporate Secretariat

In support of the GC would be a corporate Secretariat.  The Secretariat would be led by the management team noted above.  Of note is a proposal that most of the middle and lower level management necessary for the functioning of the Institutes would also be centrally located.  There are many reasons why this is recommended:

-A central administration that is familiar with all operating Institutes can influence the extent of integration and inclusiveness for the CIHR as a whole;
-Efficiencies can be gained by creating a critical mass of administrative support;
-Central administration will facilitate the mobility and flexibility of individual Institutes;

Therefore, the corporate secretariat would support not only the GC but all the Institutes as well.  It is likely that within the secretariat that some segmentation of staff functioning will occur to ensure an appropriate level of familiarity with an Institutes activity.  It would be expeditious to initially staff the secretariat with secondments from the existing research councils: individuals who are familiar with the health research community, peer review and the vision for the CIHR.

Top of page / Haut de la page