Making Funding Decisions
How does the FFB decide what to fund? This basic question has a two word answer – peer review.
Peer review asks scientists to examine the work of others in their field and to decide what is most significant and potentially productive. It is considered the most credible way to make research funding decisions, and to give awards. Peer review is also used to decide the content of scientific journals and conference speakers.
In FFB funding reviews, the review panel consists of our Scientific Advisory Board and other reviewers who may be invited if added expertise in a specific area is needed. The review panel considers proposals for new studies submitted by Canadian scientists. The panel decides which proposals are most likely to provide insights into the causes of retinal degenerative diseases, or to improve their diagnosis, prevention or treatment in accordance with our published guidelines for the allocation of funding. All participants volunteer their time.
Peer review involves scientists evaluating colleagues, so it has strict rules around process, confidentiality and conflict of interest. This is particularly important in Canada’s interconnected vision research community. If a member of our SAB submits a proposal for research funding, that scientist cannot participate in the review of proposals for that year. If a working colleague of a reviewer submits a proposal (someone they hold other grants with), they cannot participate in the evaluation of that grant.
The whole group reads and discusses the proposals. The chair, Dr. Valerie Wallace assigns two lead reviewers to each proposal. These two guide the discussion and provide written feedback to the author. This feedback promotes continuous improvement of scientific work.
As each proposal is discussed, it is ranked. The panel then recommends how the available budget could be assigned to the top ranked proposals. They forward these recommendations to our board of directors for final decision.