Continuing the conversation: Project Grant and what comes next
October 14, 2026
Since publishing our discussion paper, Project Grant: Building a sustainable future for curiosity-driven research, we have continued meeting with members of the health research community to explore the challenges facing the Project Grant program and the potential interventions outlined in the paper.
If you have not already done so, we encourage you to read the discussion paper and provide your feedback. The consultation is open until the end of the calendar year, and more than 700 people have already provided feedback. To encourage broad participation from across the health research community, we are also sharing the survey directly with people who have previously reviewed for CIHR or been part of a CIHR-funded project.
Your feedback will help shape the future of CIHR's largest funding program and, in turn, how CIHR supports curiosity-driven health research in Canada.
Project Grant: Getting the details right
On September 28, we met with Project Grant peer review committee Chairs to take a closer look at the potential interventions outlined in the discussion paper. We asked a practical question: if CIHR were to pursue these interventions, what would we need to get right?
Drawing on their experience as reviewers, applicants and leaders in the peer review process, Chairs explored potential approaches in three areas: managing application pressure, strengthening peer review, and improving program design. The discussion focused not simply on whether an intervention could help address the pressures facing the Project Grant program, but on how it might work in practice, and what risks, trade-offs, or unintended consequences CIHR would need to anticipate.
On managing application pressure, the discussion surfaced practical considerations such as how to prevent unintended workarounds, protect the sustainability of research teams, establish fair and workable eligibility rules, manage reviewer workload and create realistic timelines for providing and responding to feedback.
On strengthening peer review, Chairs emphasized the importance of supporting and monitoring review quality, securing institutional support and establishing clear and transparent criteria where new approaches could affect funding outcomes.
Chairs also examined opportunities to improve program design. Among the considerations raised were whether budget assessment could be better separated from scientific review, whether current approaches to across-the-board budget reductions remain fit for purpose, and whether the Project Grant program can continue to appropriately support the full range of investigator-initiated research it is called on to fund.
Clinical trials and randomized controlled trials (CTs/RCTs) are one example of research for which a program with specific requirements may be warranted. Chairs discussed the possibility of a new, stand-alone, fit-for-purpose program designed around the distinct features of CTs/RCTs. These studies can span many areas of science, use different methodologies, involve large, multi-site teams and complex budgets, require longer timelines, and call for progress to be tracked against clear milestones. The Chairs also considered how such a program could be introduced without creating unnecessary fragmentation or complexity across CIHR's funding landscape. This concept was explored further with a smaller group of experts, and we will share a summary of that discussion in our next update.
Taken together, the discussion underscored that even seemingly straightforward changes can have consequences elsewhere in the system. The choices are interconnected and getting them right will require careful attention to implementation, transitions, reviewer and applicant experience, and the overall fairness and integrity of the program.
This conversation with Project Grant Chairs is one part of a much broader engagement effort. Over the past month, we have also engaged with members of the research community at the University of Saskatchewan, the University of Alberta, the U-15 and the University of Calgary. More conversations are planned in the weeks ahead, including at McGill, Université Laval and the University of Toronto.
These conversations are helping us test not only the potential benefits and risks of individual interventions, but how different approaches might interact across the funding system. We will continue to share what we hear as the consultation progresses.
What comes next
There is no single, simple or universally accepted solution to the pressures facing the Project Grant program. That is why we are consulting before decisions are made. The discussion paper presents a range of potential interventions, and we want to understand their benefits, risks and interactions before determining what should move forward.
We also want the evidence informing this conversation to be as open and accessible as possible. If you would like access to our data or would like to conduct your own analysis of CIHR data, please contact IIRconsultations-consultationsRL@cihr-irsc.gc.ca. We welcome opportunities to share our data with the community and support independent analysis that can contribute to this discussion, and we will make every effort to accommodate requests as our capacity allows.
We are grateful to everyone who is contributing their time, experience and ideas to this work. These are important decisions for Canada's health research community, and we want to get them right together.
We look forward to continuing the conversation and sharing what we learn along the way.
Sincerely,
Adrian Mota, Vice-President, Research Programs
Tammy Clifford, PhD, Vice-President, Strategic Science and External Relations
- Date modified: