A mathematics grant averages $22,000. In subatomic physics, it exceeds $148,000. The same agency, the same evaluation criteria, a nearly sevenfold gap. This divide is not a sign of unfairness; it is the inherent structure of what science costs.
Since 1998, NSERC has distributed 670,532 grants across all programs. The Discovery Grant sits at the heart of this: from 2010 to 2022, this single program delivered $4.4 billion to more than 114,000 researchers across 13 disciplinary committees, covering the full spectrum of natural sciences and engineering.
These committees are not mere administrative categories. They define the peers who evaluate proposals, the standards of merit that apply, and implicitly, the amount considered reasonable to fund a research program. A subatomic physicist and a mathematician both submit a Discovery application, but they enter entirely different worlds.
The Discovery program has no fixed amount per discipline. NSERC evaluates scientific quality and resource needs. Those needs, reflecting the material cost of each discipline, are what drive the nearly sevenfold gap between particle physics and mathematics.
The dot plot below positions each discipline by its average grant size. Subatomic physics peaks at $147,925 per grant. Mathematics and statistics sit at the bottom at $21,866. Between them, a continuum that reveals the logic of each field.
Chemistry ($54,339) and geosciences ($36,316) fall in the middle of the range. Engineering disciplines (mechanical, electrical, civil) cluster between $30,000 and $37,000. Computer science, despite its booming digital economy, averages just $31,735 per researcher, near the bottom of the scale.
The logic behind this gap comes down to a simple reality: subatomic physics requires particle accelerators, specialized detectors, and missions to CERN or SNOLAB. These infrastructure costs flow directly into the budgets requested, then awarded. A mathematician needs a computer, a library, and time. The difference in treatment is not arbitrary: it reflects a fundamental difference in what science requires to produce results.
Biology is the most funded discipline by volume: Biological Systems and Functions totals $635M over the period, ahead of Genes, Cells and Molecules ($582M). These two committees account for more than 30,000 grants between 2010 and 2022. Subatomic physics, with 4,057 grants and $573M, approaches the same total with four times fewer recipients.
These two archetypes reflect two visions of scientific funding. The life-sciences model distributes broadly: each cell biology researcher receives modest support, but the program reaches a vast ecosystem. High-energy physics concentrates: a few dozen teams receive substantial amounts for projects with irreducible costs.
In engineering, mechanical engineering stands out by grant volume: with 7,275 grants, mechanical engineering sits behind civil engineering (9,625) and electrical engineering (8,652) in the Discovery program, confirming the weight of civil and systems research in Canadian applied science.
Mathematics and computer science occupy an uncomfortable third position: neither the volume of life sciences, nor the grant size of physics. Computer science counts 11,040 grants for $348M, mathematics 9,630 grants for $211M. These are high-demand disciplines that receive proportionally less per researcher than physics or the life sciences.
The heatmap below shows annual funding per discipline from 2010 to 2022. Years 2023-2024 are excluded due to a publication lag in the NSERC database: the most recent data was still incomplete at the time of this analysis.
Subatomic physics shows notable growth between 2016 and 2020, a period coinciding with Canada-wide investments in fundamental physics. Life sciences maintain high, stable funding throughout the period. Engineering disciplines grow gradually, reflecting the priority placed on applied research.
The rank chart below compares the eight leading disciplines across two five-year windows: 2010-2014 versus 2018-2022. A shift upward means the discipline gained share of funding (a lower rank number being better).
NSERC does not fund abstract science: it funds the material cost of each discipline. Subatomic physics receives $148,000 on average because its experiments require it. Mathematics receives $22,000 because pencil and thought do not require detectors. This system is internally consistent, but it leaves mathematics and computer science structurally underfunded relative to their real economic value. The nearly sevenfold gap between the two extremes does not reflect seven times less scientific value produced.
This analysis covers NSERC Discovery Grants available through the GrantData API. The data spans 2010 to 2022.
GrantData
entity_type = research_grant are included.You can reproduce and extend this analysis using the GrantData API.
Access 670,000 NSERC grants by program, discipline, university, or year.
Search NSERC Grants API Access