I always say that I can put my researchers up against anyone in this country. We do exceptional work here. The phrase is overused, but we punch above our weight.
We have incredible facilities, expertise and people. In particular, our long-standing tradition of being one of the two best universities in the country for neuroscience research is striking. We do more work with dementia, Alzheimer's and intergenerational memory loss issues, genetic and trauma-based. It's very important here. Some of that is hard to get out into the user communities and end-user groups, in part because we don't always have access to the same venues and services that our larger counterparts do. Regardless, we continue to succeed. I think that's a real testament to the resilience and power of knowledge and the way the Canadian funding infrastructure system has worked, for the most part.
What I would say is this: The merit review process in our tri-agencies is very strong. It is exceptional. However, the one area I struggle with in that particular review process is review committee members being asked to make judgments on whether there is sufficient institutional capacity for success. When I sign that grant, I'm telling you there's institutional capacity for success. I think it's inappropriate for people who have never been to my university or don't know my university to be asked to make that kind of judgment. If I'm saying we're going to do it, we're going to do it. That kind of capacity question sometimes gets asked in an inappropriate way. We're asking review members to make judgments they can't possibly know the answer to, in some cases.
This has, I think, led to some funding inequities because there's a perception that we can't do the work we say we're going to do.