Please visit our contact us page to find the appropriate contact.

Animal research plays a prominent and currently irreplaceable role at Brock in research conducted in the Applied Health Sciences, Biology, Kinesiology and Psychology Departments and in the Centre for Neuroscience. Brock animal research contributes to projects investigating:

• brain mechanisms involved in learning and memory
• vocal communication and regulation of emotions
• how limbs and spinal cords regenerate in amphibians
• the underlying mechanisms of disorders such as insulin resistance and diabetes and how potential exercise and nutritional therapies can ameliorate the condition
• how vertebrates control their body temperature under physiological and pathological conditions
• the role of food components in the regulation of bone health with the long-term goal of developing nutritional strategies that prevent bone loss, preserve bone structure, and ultimately reduce the risk of fragility fractures (i.e. osteoporosis)
• how a failsafe mechanism property of muscles influences their metabolic performance during exercise, sport and work
• skeletal muscle disorders such muscular dystrophy.

Animal research at Brock involves small animals: mice and rats, amphibians, reptiles and fish. This is like other animal-based research programs across Canada.

Before animal research is considered, an analysis of the alternatives must be made. If animal research is found to be the only viable method, the research group must demonstrate to the reviewing Animal Care Committee (ACC) that the research will be conducted according to the highest ethical standards.

In evaluating the proposal and the steps that will be taken to ensure the wellbeing of the animals involved, ACCs refer to the “three Rs” for guidance:

• Replacement: designing research methods that avoid or replace the use of animals in a study where animals would otherwise have been used
• Reduction: minimizing the number of animals used
• Refinement: designing and modifying procedures to minimize distress.

The ACC application must address any potentially adverse procedures or conditions along with the actions that will be taken to address them. This includes details of any surgery, any necessary anesthetics, humane endpoint conditions for stopping the study, and the ultimate method of euthanasia.

Yes, all Brock researchers must obtain prior approval before undertaking studies using animals. Requests for permission are made to the Animal Care Committee (ACC).

Granting of permission is based upon the review of an Animal Use Protocol (AUP) application form submitted by the principal investigator involved in the study.

The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) is an independent body that oversees the ethical use of animals in science in Canada. The CCAC is responsible for the dissemination of information on the use of animals in science to Canadians and is accountable to the public. In addition to guidelines, documents and policies, the CCAC compiles comprehensive annual statistics on the number of animals used in science and produces an annual report to disseminate information to its constituents and the public. Please visit the CCAC website.

Animal-based research must only be undertaken if expert, independent opinion has attested to the probable scientific value of the research within its field. For a research program or project that has been examined through an independent and expert peer-review process (e.g., federal and provincial granting agencies and others), Brock’s Animal Care Committee (ACC) accepts the results of this review as evidence of scientific merit. However, if a project has not been peer-reviewed by an external agency, an internal peer review must be conducted, and the study must be reviewed for scientific merit by expert peers. If your animal research proposal needs a peer-review, send an email to [email protected] and the ACC Coordinator will facilitate the process of internal peer review in collaboration with the Dean of the researcher’s faculty.

For more information, please visit CCAC policy statement on: scientific merit and ethical review of animal-based research and its accompanying frequently asked questions document.

The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) provides guidance on whether REB review is required. The TCPS also stipulates that when in doubt, researchers should consult their REB.

Basic guidelines for determining whether research requires REB review

If you think your research is exempt from REB review, please contact the Office of Research Ethics to confirm and the Office can provide you with a letter of exemption.

The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, or TCPS2 (2022), is a joint policy of Canada’s three federal research agencies – the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

The TCPS2 expresses the Agencies’ continuing commitment to the people of Canada to promote the ethical conduct of research involving humans. It has been informed, in part, by leading international ethics norms, all of which may help, in some measure, to guide Canadian researchers, in Canada and abroad, in the conduct of research involving humans.

Applying the core principles of Respect for Persons, Concern for Welfare and Justice, the TCPS2 provides guidance for institutions, researchers and research ethics boards in the ethical conduct and review of research involving humans. All researchers conducting human participant research under the auspices and jurisdiction of Brock University must adhere to the guidelines laid out in the TCPS2.

The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, or TCPS2, defines research as an undertaking intended to extend knowledge through a disciplined inquiry or systematic investigation. Human participants are those individuals whose human biological materials, data, or responses to interventions, stimuli or questions by the researcher are relevant to answering the research question.

Turn-around time is defined as the amount of time it takes for a newly submitted application to be processed and for the Research Ethics Board (REB) to respond with an initial determination. Note the initial determination of the REB may be that to complete the review process, further clarification or revision is needed from the researcher(s). Consideration should be given to this possibility when estimating timelines. Additional time is contingent on how long the researcher(s) take to respond to the REB’s requests.

The anticipated turn-around time for minimal risk projects, is 15-20 working days. Projects posing greater than minimal risk are reviewed at pre-scheduled, monthly meetings and vary in turn-around time according to the complexity of the review.

Once you have clearance to begin your research, you may have to file subsequent forms to make modifications or amendments to your initial application, and/or to renew your clearance. Clearance for these forms normally takes 5-10 working days.

It is important that you ensure you complete the appropriate application form:

• Application for Ethics Review. This is the standard application or default form appropriate for the majority of projects.
• Application for Course-based Research (Faculty only). This form should only be completed by instructors who wish to include a research component/class assignment in their course syllabus. Note that this form is for student research. It is not appropriate for instructors wanting to conduct research on their own students – that would require the standard form, Application for Ethics Review.
• Application for Secondary Use of Data. This form should be filled out if your research relies solely on information or human biological materials originally collected for a purpose other than the current research.
• Once you have determined the correct form, you may also need to include an Application for Human Tissue Research, if your project involves the collection of (or the use of already collected) human biological materials, including but not limited to blood, saliva, hair samples, and/or (non-commercial) cells.

A “Full Board Review” is the standard review process for all Research Ethics Board (REB) applications. The application is reviewed by all members of the relevant board (Social Science Research Ethics Board (SREB) or Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (HREB)) and discussed during a pre-scheduled monthly meeting.

While Full Board Review is the default, files that are considered to pose no more than minimal risk to participants may be routed through an alternative process called a “Delegated Review”. Delegated Reviews are assigned to one or more REB members to conduct a review on behalf of the full REB.

You should make sure to submit your application well in advance of when you wish to begin your data collection. Minimal risk applications undergo a delegated review process and normally take up to 20 working days. Note that this process may take longer, depending on the volume of applications the office receives at any given time. Once this initial review process is complete, the PI may be sent a list of requested clarifications or revisions to be made to the application. These revisions must be completed and returned to the REB for review before clearance can be provided.

Your application should include all materials relevant to the project, including but not limited to:

• Data collection instruments such as questionnaires, surveys, recording forms, visual examples, descriptions of tasks, etc.
• Recruitment materials, e.g., email, verbal scripts, posters, and letters of invitation.
• Consent materials, such as information letters and informed consent forms, verbal scripts for oral consent, assent forms, etc.
• Any contracts, data or material, transfer agreements, etc.; and
• Where graduate students are involved in the research, you will also need to attach certificates of completion for the TCPS2: CORE Tutorial.

Grant clearance for an application (subject to researchers making requested clarifications or revisions)

Delay a decision on clearance until further discussion can be had

Seek additional advice from external experts

Deny clearance, based on an unfavorable assessment of the ethical acceptability of the proposed research (considering the foreseeable risks, potential benefits, and ethical implications of the project)

Suspend or terminate research (usually due to an adverse event or compliance issue)

Report suspected research non-compliance under the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2021).

A PI oversees the entire conduct of the project and are responsible for ethical conduct from conceptualization through to dissemination and long-term data storage. A PI must sign off on the Research Ethics Board (REB) application, explicitly attesting to the Confirmation of Responsibility page (the final section of each REB application – which outlines specifically what is expected).

A PI is also responsible for complying with all institutional policies, ensuring each study team member is appropriately selected and trained to carry out their roles, and for ensuring compliance with REB requirements (incl. conducting the research in accordance with the approved application/study documents, submitting and changes for approval, reporting any adverse events, submitting annual updates, etc.).

Each student researcher (undergraduate, master’s, or doctoral) or post-doctoral fellow must have a faculty supervisor to oversee any research with human participants.

Faculty supervisors must agree to provide proper supervision of student research and student researchers to ensure the rights and welfare of all human participants are protected. These responsibilities extend to the supervision of students undertaking a thesis, exit project, or course-based research as part of their degree requirements as well as students working as research/laboratory staff, project managers, research assistants, or similar roles.

For specific information on eligibility to serve as a PI, please read the Research Ethics Board (REB) Standard: Eligibility to Serve as a Principal Investigator. Principal Investigator (PI) is the title designated to the person in charge of a research project. The PI is responsible for the overall conduct of the project, including supervising other researchers, financial administration, and ensuring that the appropriate guidelines and regulations are followed. The PI is responsible for the ethical conduct of the research, and for the actions of any member of the research team at a local site.

A Brock ethics application can only have one PI. Other investigators on the research team are considered as “co-investigators.” Note that students cannot be PI at Brock.

To transfer the responsibility of a PI and/or Faculty Supervisor to another eligible individual you must:

• Submit an Amendment Request Form outlining the requested change.
• Attach all relevant project materials with the appropriate name changes.
• Provide proof of confirmation from both parties, the incoming and outgoing PI/Supervisor(s).

A student cannot be identified as a PI on an application, but the main student applicant can be identified as a Principal Student Investigator (PSI). Student researchers must have a faculty supervisor and that individual is typically, although not always, the principal investigator. For specific information on eligibility to serve as a PI, please read the Research Ethics Board (REB) Standard: Eligibility to Serve as a Principal Investigator.

Brock University Senate regulations require graduate students completing a major research paper or thesis to submit a research proposal to their supervisory committee for approval (see Faculty Handbook III: B9.2A–B). In accordance with relevant program procedures, students are expected to have committee approval prior to applying for research ethics review.

All Brock Graduate students involved in human participant research must complete the TCPS2: Course on Research Ethic (CORE). Confirmation of training, in the form of a certificate of completion provided by the platform, must be attached to research ethics applications where a graduate student is part of the research team, regardless of their role.

It is highly recommended that all student and faculty researchers engaged in research involving human participants, complete the CORE tutorial. Many Canadian institutions have policies in place that make its completion mandatory for all researchers named on a project.

Yes, Brock faculty must apply for ethics clearance for all research projects that they are involved in, even if the research takes place at a different institute. This is called a “Previously Approved” application.

To apply for ethics review from Brock when a project already has ethics clearance from another institution, submit a regular ethics application, with only Section A, items 1 through 7 filled out, to [email protected]. Attach the approved application from the home institution, with all corresponding documents (research protocol, recruitment and consent materials, questionnaires, measures etc.). Include the home institution’s clearance certificate, and any modifications (if applicable) and their respective clearance certificates. Note that failure to obtain clearance from Brock may be a breach of the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2021).

The turn-around time for Previously Approved applications is approximately 10-15 working days.

New faculty members are strongly encouraged to contact the Research Ethics Board (REB) for assistance in applying for ethics clearance under Brock’s auspices and jurisdiction. Existing projects must be submitted to the Brock REB for review as soon as possible upon arrival.

Yes, a Secondary Use of Data application must be submitted to [email protected]. The TCPS2 defines secondary use as the use or research of “information or human biological materials originally collected for a purpose other than the current research purpose” (TCPS2, 2022, Glossary).

Applications for secondary use of data should detail the purpose of the study, how the data will be obtained, the original consent process, and where relevant, permissions that may still be needed. Further information is required as to the research team’s plans for data confidentiality, security, retention and/or the ultimate destruction of data.

Researchers do not necessarily need consent from individuals for the secondary use of non-identifiable information, but they do still Research Ethics Board (REB) clearance.

As outlined in Article 5.5A of the TCPS2 2022, researchers who have not obtained consent from participants for secondary use of identifiable information shall only use such information for these purposes if they have satisfied the REB that:

• identifiable information is essential to the research
• the use of identifiable information without the participants’ consent is unlikely to adversely affect the welfare of individuals to whom the information relates
• the researchers will take appropriate measures to protect the privacy of individuals, and to safeguard the identifiable information
• the researchers will comply with any known preferences previously expressed by individuals about any use of their information
• it is impossible or impracticable to seek consent from individuals to whom the information relates; and
• the researchers have obtained any other necessary permission for secondary use of information for research purposes.

Research involving the collection of (or the use of already collected) human biological materials also requires a Human Tissue Form to be submitted alongside the application.

A ‘clinical trial’ is a research study where human participants are prospectively assigned to one or more interventions to evaluate the effects of these interventions on health-related outcomes. Clinical trials are most frequently undertaken in biomedical research, although research that evaluates interventions, usually by comparing two or more approaches, is also conducted in related disciplines such as psychology.

There are two types of clinical studies: interventional studies (also called clinical trials) and observational studies.

• Interventional Studies are a type of clinical study in which participants are assigned to groups that receive one or more intervention/treatment (or no intervention in the case of control groups) so that researchers can evaluate the effects of the interventions on biomedical or health-related outcomes. The assignments are determined by the study’s protocol. Participants may receive diagnostic, therapeutic, or other types of interventions.
• Observational Studies are a type of clinical study in which participants are identified as belonging to a group of interest and are assessed for biomedical or health outcomes. Participants may receive diagnostic, therapeutic, or other types of interventions, but the investigator does not assign participants to specific interventions/treatment.

Note that all clinical trials must be registered in a publicly accessible registry before the first trial participant is recruited. Clinical trial registries are intended to increase transparency and accountability by providing a record of clinical trials at the recruitment stage that can be used to locate publication of trial results.

Clinical trial registries must be acceptable to the World Health Organization (WHO) or the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The majority of Brock researchers register with clinicaltrials.gov, an online, structured, web-based study registry that is accessible to the public. Information regarding registration is found on the registry website. Entries on clinicaltrials.gov require researchers to provide a summary of the study protocol, recruitment status; eligibility criteria; contact information; and, in some cases, summary results. Each study registered is assigned a unique identifier, or NCT number. Researchers must provide this NCT number to the Office of Research Ethics before final ethics clearance will be granted.

Following the registration of their study, researchers are responsible for ensuring that their registry entry is updated with any new study information, in particular, information on safety; efficacy reports where feasible; reasons, should a trial be stopped early; and where study findings can be found.

Clinical trials that involve testing of new drugs, devices or natural health products, or those previously approved but now being proposed for new/different populations may require registration with Health Canada.

Health Canada-regulated clinical trials are normally sponsored by a third party. The sponsor is required to ensure compliance with Health Canada regulations throughout all aspects of the clinical trial, including submitting a clinical trial application (CTA), providing sufficient and ongoing monitoring of the project, and assuming responsibility for any adverse or unanticipated events.

Health Canada requirements for drug, device and natural health product clinical trials can be found below.

• Health Canada Clinical Trial Application (CTA) for studies involving the use of pharmaceutical, biological, and radiopharmaceutical drugs.
• Good Clinical Practices (GCP)
• Drugs: Guidance Document for Clinical Trial Sponsors: Clinical Trial Applications
• Devices: Applications for Medical Device Investigational Testing Authorizations Guidance Document
• Natural Health Products: Clinical Trials For Natural Health Products

Amendments are planned or anticipated modifications or changes to a study that occur after the study has received ethics clearance. To make a change to an approved REB application you must submit an Amendment Request Form for Research Ethics Board (REB) review and get revised REB clearance, prior to implementing the change. Your submission should include all modified project materials (e.g., application, consent form) with changes highlighted.

Sometimes a researcher may find it necessary to deviate from the REB-approved protocol, whether intentionally to reduce previously unanticipated risk to participants, or unintentionally while conducting research. Protocol Deviations are changes made to a study after it has received ethics clearance; however, protocol deviations are unanticipated or unintentional. Deviations can be minor or major in nature.

• Minor protocol deviations generally impact administrative and logistical aspects of the study.
• Major protocol deviations impact the research protocol, information consent documents or other study materials, usually cannot be anticipated ahead of time, and are often necessary to ensure the safety and welfare of participants. Examples of major protocol deviations include changes in procedures required to eliminate immediate risk/hazards to participants; enrollment of participants outside the protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria (whether agreed to or not by the sponsor); significant deviation in the informed consent process (i.e. use of incorrect version).

The Principal Investigator and Faculty Supervisor, in the case of student research, is responsible for reporting any protocol deviations discovered during any stages of the research through the submission of a Protocol Deviation Report form. Protocol deviations of a major nature must be reported to the Office of Research Ethics as soon as possible and no more than 5 days after the deviation occurs.

If your project will continue beyond the initial expiration date listed on the clearance certificate, you must submit a Status Report for review prior to the expiration date. You will receive a reminder from the Office of Research Ethics before this date. A Status Report summarizes the current state of ongoing research. If you fail to submit a Status Report Form in time, your clearance will expire, and you will need to submit a new application to the Research Ethics Board (REB) to continue your research.

If you fail to submit a Status Report in time, your clearance will expire, and you will need to submit a new application to the REB to continue your research. No research can be conducted unless a current REB clearance certificate is in place.

Upon completion of the main study objectives, a Study Closure Form, summarizing the project outcomes can be submitted, and your ethics file for that project will be closed. At minimum, files must be kept open until participants are no longer actively engaged in the research. Note that if you anticipate additional data collection may be needed in the future (e.g., following manuscript review), we recommend that you keep the file open.

Upon project completion, the Principal Investigator must submit a Study Closure Form, summarizing the project outcomes. A Study Closure Form summarizes a project’s final outcomes. Once a Study Closure Form is accepted by the Office of Research Ethics, the file will be closed so if you anticipate additional data collection may be needed in the future (e.g., following manuscript review), you are recommended to keep your file open by submitting a Status Report Form instead.

Projects that are completed prior to the expiration date can still follow the normal study closure process (i.e., submit a Study Closure Form, summarizing the project outcomes).

An adverse event is an incident or undesirable experience, response, or outcome that occurs during the conduct of research and has a negative impact on participant welfare. Adverse events may be anticipated or unanticipated. The incident or event may encompass physical, psychological, social, economic, legal, or informational harms, including injury or detriment experienced by a research participant.

Adverse events, including those classified as a Serious Adverse Event (SAEs; see definition below), are normally graded according to participant/event outcomes and action criteria associated with events. Grades range from mild, to moderate, to severe. Implications may be short- or long-term. An adverse event may, or may not, infer a causal relationship with a research procedure, but the event must be temporally related to study participation, meaning that the event must occur during the study. Any harm attributed to an adverse event must be absent prior to the study or, if present prior to the study, appear to worsen upon participation.

The Principal Investigator has an obligation to promptly report to the Office of Research Ethics (ORE), any adverse event that occurs during the conduct of research. For further information including timelines for reporting, refer to the Brock University Research Ethics Board (REB) Guideline for Reporting Adverse Events. If the incident or issue has immediate implications for the safety of participants, the REB may require that research be temporarily halted, modified, or terminated to prevent recurrence.

The term “Serious Adverse Event” is reserved specifically for incidents, experiences, and outcomes where:

• The event is life-threatening and/or results in death
• The event requires medical intervention resulting in in-patient hospitalization, or prolongs existing hospitalization
• The event results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity
• The event requires intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage
• The event results in a congenital anomaly/birth defect

The Principal Investigator has an obligation to promptly report to the Office of Research Ethics (ORE), any adverse event that occurs during the conduct of research. For further information including timelines for reporting, refer to the Brock University REB Guideline for Reporting Adverse Events. If the incident or issue has immediate implications for the safety of participants, the REB may require that research be temporarily halted, modified, or terminated to prevent recurrence.

For a full listing of Research Enterprise staff, please refer to our contact us page. If you are still unsure about who to contact, email [email protected] to have your request routed appropriately.

Brock University’s research-related strategic priorities are defined in 3 related but distinct documents.

The Brock University Strategic Plan sets the strategic direction of the institution and directly informs the priorities of the Research Enterprise.

The Strategic Research Plan promotes alignment among research capacity and infrastructure, areas of excellence, recruitment of scholars and graduate students, and capacity for Brock research to have high impact through uptake, partnerships, commercialization, and collaborations. This plan promotes strategic research goals and expresses priorities for the allocation of Canada Research Chairs at Brock.

The Research Enterprise Strategic Plan serves as an implementation plan for the strategic priority to “build research capacity across the university” (Institutional Strategic Plan 2018-2025).

The latter two plans are currently in the process of being renewed to align with the recently launched Institutional Strategic Plan.

For information regarding Brock’s Research Institute and Centres, please refer to the research institute and centres page.

For information regarding supports available for publishing and open access, please refer to the Brock University Library’s Publishing Support and Open Access Support pages.

For information relating to postdoctoral fellows, please refer to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs Postdoctoral Scholars page.

For information on the Vice-President Research Internal Award for Postdoctoral Fellows, valued at $5,000.

ORS staff will work with researchers to build funding for students and other highly qualified personnel (HQP) into external grant budgets. Internal funding supports are also available, as outlined on the Research Enterprise SharePoint page.

For more information on funding opportunities for students, please refer to the Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs website.

For information on available supports for industry partnerships, please refer to the Brock LINC Industry Partnerships page.

For Brock policies and resources on Safety, Health, Environment and Risk Management in research, please refer to the Office of People and Culture Health, Safety and Wellness page.

For information on navigating the evolving guidelines regarding research security, please refer to the safeguarding your research page.

ORS staff advise on and process a variety of research-related contracts and agreements. These can be funded (e.g., sponsored research agreements, research service agreements, subgrants) and unfunded (e.g., material transfer agreements, data transfer agreements, non-disclosure agreements, memoranda of agreement, or research memoranda of understanding). Contactors [email protected] to have your request routed appropriately. Documents requiring VPR signature must first be reviewed and processed by ORS staff who will route the documents to the Office of the VPR. We ask that researchers please not submit requests for signature directly to the Office of the VPR.

Only individuals with institutional signing authority can sign off on research contracts and agreements. For research-related agreements, the appropriate signatory is the Vice-President, Research.

Documents requiring VPR signature must first be reviewed and processed by ORS staff who will route the documents to the Office of the VPR for final approval and signature.

Internal funding opportunities sponsored by Brock’s Research Enterprise are available to researchers who meet the individual program eligibility requirements. A listing of all current internal funding opportunities is available on the internal funding page.

To keep up with upcoming funding opportunities and news from the Office of Research Services, sign up to receive Brock Research Enterprise Alerts (BREA), our monthly e-bulletin. To sign up, please send an e-mail to [email protected].

A wide range of public and private funders support Brock research. The large portion of our funding comes from the three federal funding councils: the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC); the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC); and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). However, the Research Funding Supports team is available to advise researchers on other available funding opportunities.

Brock University also subscribes to the PIVOT database, which allows researchers to search for research funding opportunities using searches that are tailored to their specific areas of research.

To keep up with upcoming funding opportunities and news from the Office of Research Services, sign up to receive Brock Research Enterprise Alerts (BREA), our monthly e-bulletin. To sign up, please send an e-mail to [email protected].

ORS sets mandatory internal submission deadlines. This allows, at minimum, for a basic review of application completeness and compliance with funding agency regulations and Brock policies. These final fixed internal deadlines are at least 3 business days ahead of external funder deadlines; however, select competitions that are more administratively complex or those that attract a higher volume of applications may have even earlier deadlines. Applications submitted after a fixed internal deadline will not be forwarded to the external funding agency.

ORS also offers optional (but strongly encouraged) internal technical reviews for those who meet a program’s technical review deadline. This deadline is typically set approximately 2-5 weeks ahead of the final fixed internal deadline, allowing time for a more comprehensive review.

Internal deadlines will be announced via our Research Enterprise SharePoint as well as in ORS communications about funding opportunities. They are also typically included in Brock Research Enterprise Alerts (BREA), our monthly e-bulletin. To sign up, please send an e-mail to [email protected].

To keep up with upcoming funding opportunities and news from the Office of Research Services, sign up to receive Brock Research Enterprise Alerts (BREA), our monthly e-bulletin. To sign up, please send an e-mail to [email protected].

To find out about Tri-Council (i.e., CIHR, NSERC, or SSHRC) partnership funding opportunities, contact [email protected] to have your request routed appropriately.

For information on select industry partnership funding opportunities, please refer to the Brock LINC Funding for Partnerships page and contact the Brock LINC at [email protected] for further information.

ORS staff must, at a minimum, complete a basic completeness and compliance review to ensure adherence with Brock policies and to verify that the institution will have the capacity to comply with funder requirements for administration of the grant should the application be successful. These reviews also mitigate the risk of errors that could prove costly to researchers or to the University. Furthermore, ORS staff help to ensure that all the necessary institutional approvals (e.g., from the Department Chair, Faculty Dean, and VPR) are obtained prior to submission. Failure to adhere to this review process may result in funding being declined by the institution.

A completed and signed ORS Cover Sheet is required for all external grant applications. The researcher seeking funding is responsible for completing and signing the form, and for obtaining their Chair’s and Dean’s (or designates) signatures. ORS staff will route the form for VPR signature.

Both Word and PDF versions are available for download and can be found in the Forms section of the Research Enterprise SharePoint site.

Funding applications, contracts, and any other documents requiring VPR approval and/or signature must first be reviewed and processed by ORS. Once reviewed by ORS, approval and signatures (if required) will be requested from the Office of the VPR. We ask that researchers please not submit requests for signature or approval directly to the Office of the VPR.

Information about EDI in research and related support is available on the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) in Research page.

The updated salary schedules for part-time students and research employees may be found on the Office of People and Culture SharePoint site.

Examples of previous successful grants may be available for select funding programs. Please reach out to the Research Officer responsible for the funding opportunity you are interested in or contact [email protected] to have your request routed appropriately.

Once funding is confirmed, ORS staff members will need to collect all the necessary information to open a new research account (e.g., a notice of award, funding agreement, ethics or animal care certificates, etc.).

Staff will contact you to share important information about your research grant or agreement and will communicate with you the details of your new research account once it has been opened.

Please reach out to the Research Officer responsible for the funding opportunity or contact [email protected] to have your request routed appropriately.

To request a transfer of funds, please reach out to the Research Officer responsible for the funding opportunity or contact [email protected] to have your request routed appropriately.

To request a transfer of funds between accounts, please reach out to the Research Accountant responsible for the funding opportunity or contact [email protected] to have your request routed appropriately.

You will receive a notification from the Office of Research Services with the account information once your research account has been created.

Please reach out to the Administrative Assistant for your Faculty or Department for support with setting up a contract.

The direct costs that may be invoiced to a research project do not fully account for the investment and resources facilitating it. Often referred to as “overhead” or “indirect costs,” these additional costs of research activity include expenses associated with physical facilities, scientific resources, administrative management, and other support services.

View Brock’s Indirect Costs of Research Policy

In accordance with this policy, indirect costs must be included in research budgets whenever possible. This ensures that critical supports that facilitate research continue to be funded. Exemptions to the standard indirect costs of research rate of 40% may be approved under certain circumstances but must be requested through an exemption request form (available on the Research Enterprise SharePoint site).

Please refer to Brock’s Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expense Policy for details and your grant’s eligibility requirements, following the more restrictive of the two. Please note eligibility requirements may vary by sponsor.

For specific questions, please reach out to [email protected] to have your request routed appropriately.

For information on ethics requirements and certifications, please refer to the Office of Research Ethics (ORE) page.

For information on the use of animals in research, please refer to the Animal Care Services page.

You can complete an Early Release of Funds request form to receive a portion of your funds for activities that do not require clearance ahead of formal ethics or other compliance clearance. The form is available in the Forms Section of the Research Enterprise SharePoint. Please send the completed form to the Research Officer responsible for the funding opportunity or contact [email protected] to have your request routed appropriately.

Please reach out to the Research Officer responsible for the funding opportunity or contact [email protected] to have your request routed appropriately.

If eligible, you can either request an extension or have your funds moved to a General Research Fund (GRF) Account. To discuss your options, please reach out to the Research Officer responsible for the funding opportunity or contact [email protected] to have your request routed appropriately.

If eligible, you can receive an extension through CIHR, however, any funds remaining at the end of the grant must be returned to CIHR as there is no General Research Fund (GRF) equivalent available for CIHR grants. To discuss your options, please reach out to the Research Officer responsible for the funding opportunity or contact [email protected] to have your request routed appropriately.

For more information on research impact supports available through the Research Enterprise, including KMb/KT consultations, please refer to the Research Impact KMb page.

The Research Impact Hub, located in Rankin Family Pavilion, is a dynamic space designed to cultivate collaboration, fuel insightful discussions, and drive the momentum of impactful research. It offers an interactive showcase of items/artifacts related to Brock research, with tailored tours available to align with individual interests and goals.

The hub is a bookable workspace available for workshops, speakers, seminars, and research event. For more information or to book the space for a meeting or event, email [email protected].

Please visit the Research and Innovation events page for a listing of upcoming events. Additionally, visit the Updates/Newsletters section on the Research Enterprise contact us page for more information about the various newsletters available to stay up to date on Research Enterprise-related news.

For all questions relating to Brock marketing and communication services, and media relations, please refer to the University Marketing and Communications page.