The CIHR Individual Grants Program.

Signatures 1967 total

Page: « ‹ 1, ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, ... 40 › »

1. 1651
   Name: Khem Jhamandas on Dec 20, 2010

   Comments: Individual or investigator driven grants are at the heart of biomeidcal research and should be preserved and funded in higher numbers. I fully concur with points made in the petititon. We need to reward excellence and not leave funding to chance!

   Flag
2. 1652
   Name: Vania F. Prado on Dec 20, 2010

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 1653
   Name: Dr Richard Rowe on Dec 20, 2010

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 1654
   Name: Renjith Pillai on Dec 20, 2010

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 1655
   Name: Anonymous on Dec 20, 2010

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 1656
   Name: James Choy on Dec 20, 2010

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 1657
   Name: Christy Thomson on Dec 20, 2010

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 1658
   Name: Hung Q. Ly on Dec 20, 2010

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 1659
   Name: Danny Chao on Dec 20, 2010

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 1660
    Name: Julian Davies on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments: The recent appearance of more broad range ß-lactamases makes it imperative that Canada increases support for fundamental studies on antibiotics and antibiotic resistance. This type of discovery work must be done at universities!

    Flag
11. 1661
    Name: Katey Townsend on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 1662
    Name: Timothee Revil on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 1663
    Name: Errol B Marliss on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 1664
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 1665
    Name: Natal Kanaan on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 1666
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 1667
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments: Agreed

    Flag
18. 1668
    Name: Stuart Cain on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 1669
    Name: Jeremy Parker on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments: Since the US and Britain seem to be intent on shooting themselves in the feet, I hope our government can sense the opportunity to push for a lead in research.

    Flag
20. 1670
    Name: James Zlosnik on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 1671
    Name: Ken Harder on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments: The CIHR must do a better job of funding single investigator grants and graduate student positions. The shift in funding towards ill-defined politically appealing initiatives is severely impacting the foundation of biomedical research in this country.

    Flag
22. 1672
    Name: Jeremy Hirota on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 1673
    Name: Charles J. Thompson on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments: Member Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Review Committee

    Flag
24. 1674
    Name: Adam Humble on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 1675
    Name: Dr. Jamie Burr on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments: I fully agree with the above stated problem and support this petition to its fullest.

    Flag
26. 1676
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 1677
    Name: Vincent C Chen on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 1678
    Name: Tabrez J Siddiqui on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments: Canada needs to ensure future growth and prosperity for its citizens and residents by robustly funding science. Science cannot be subjected to funding cuts; Canada will do so to its own detriment.

    Flag
29. 1679
    Name: Dongwei Zhang on Dec 20, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 1680
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 1681
    Name: Madonna Peter on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 1682
    Name: Megan Davey on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 1683
    Name: Thomas Jagoe on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 1684
    Name: Earl G. Brown on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 1685
    Name: Bethany Foster on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments: Please reconsider these important policy decisions that will have a huge negative impact on the future of science in Canada.

    Flag
36. 1686
    Name: Amanda Moore on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 1687
    Name: Shayan Sharif on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
38. 1688
    Name: Julie Dusseault on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 1689
    Name: Emmanuelle Tchekanda on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 1690
    Name: Adrian West on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 1691
    Name: Robert Bartha on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 1692
    Name: Denys Khaperskyy on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 1693
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 1694
    Name: Rui Hua on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 1695
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 1696
    Name: John Schrader on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 1697
    Name: Kelly Mcnagny on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments: Amen. In my opinion too many funds are diverted to RFAs which, in the end tend to lead fewer tangible results. RFAs are used to recruit researchers to new areas but my feeling is that they instead are used to supplement the existing programs of applicants. There is too great a temptation on the part of PIs to focus on their existing interests, particularly in times of limiting funding. It would be better to admit this reality and make more funds available for the individual operating grants competition. It is well said above: unless 20% or more of the grants are funded, peer review fails to chose the top grants and the choice becomes more random

    Flag
48. 1698
    Name: Blerta Kolaj on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 1699
    Name: Pedro D'Orleans-Juste on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 1700
    Name: Curtis Baker on Dec 21, 2010

    Comments:

    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, ... 40 › »