The House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research met to study the impact of the criteria for awarding federal funding on research excellence in Canada. The witnesses were Mahadeo Sukhai, Christopher Dummitt, Wendy Cukier, Yves Gingras, Geoff Horsman, Patanjali Kambhampati, and Julien Larregue.
Mahadeo Sukhai argued that equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility (EDIA) are central to research excellence, not separate from it. He gave examples of research failures caused by a lack of inclusive design, such as inaccessible medical devices or misclassified genetic variants, and said that diverse perspectives on teams and funding panels help identify and minimize bias. He recommended mandating inclusive research design in proposals, embedding ethical and societal impact training in curricula, and auditing EDIA initiatives to ensure they foster excellence, emphasizing that equity and excellence are mutually reinforcing.
Christopher Dummitt presented survey data showing that 88% of Canadian professors identify as left-leaning, with only 7.6% voting Conservative, and argued that this lack of viewpoint diversity damages peer review and public trust. He said current federal EDI policies, such as mandatory diversity statements, embed a partisan interpretation of EDI and can discriminate against colour-blind approaches, making the political skew worse. He recommended that funding agencies address viewpoint diversity as a major diversity problem, noting that ignoring it harms the core mission of universities.
Wendy Cukier argued that Canada’s changing demographics mean research must reflect the population, and that an EDIA lens in research design is critical to excellence, citing examples like COVID-19 vaccination strategies that failed without disaggregated data. She said that diverse teams strengthen innovation and engagement with diverse populations, and that traditional measures of excellence like citations and funding amounts are discipline-specific and can exclude important work. She recommended that research evaluation include impact on policy and practice, not just publications, and noted that most Canadians support the current focus on EDIA.
Yves Gingras argued that adding EDIA criteria to funding agencies’ missions causes “goal displacement,” as agencies were originally meant to fund the best researchers, not pursue social goals. He said excellence is a tautology—what committees deem excellent—and that decisions are often arbitrary, with studies showing randomness in grant outcomes. He recommended that funding be distributed more broadly, possibly via lottery, and that evaluations be double-blind to avoid bias from knowing applicants’ identities, adding that requiring diversity statements is an ideological imposition that violates freedom of conscience.
Geoff Horsman said his NSERC discovery grant was not renewed because he did not express sufficient support for EDI, and that he was told by a senior administrator to “just say what needs to be said” to get funding. He argued that EDI requirements compel political speech, are anti-science because they claim knowledge is invisible based on identity, and lead to self-censorship and fear. He recommended depoliticizing science funding by removing EDI requirements and entrenching a culture of free speech, including an office of devil’s advocacy to fund counterarguments against emerging scientific fads.
Patanjali Kambhampati argued that science should be based on merit, fairness, and equality (MFE), not identity-based rewards, and that politicizing science slows progress and erodes public trust. He said his own grant application was rejected on EDI grounds despite his diverse research group, and that hiring or funding based on demographics rather than ability undermines trust and discovery. He recommended that science funding be administered based on MFE principles, with evaluations free from ideological filters, and warned that Canada risks repeating historical mistakes where ideology overruled science.
Julien Larregue presented data from SSHRC showing that grant success is heavily influenced by past grants and university prestige, with researchers at McGill, Toronto, and UBC receiving larger grants and higher success rates than those at smaller universities. He said that evaluation criteria vary by discipline and that committees interpret rules differently, so changing agency rules alone may not change practices. He recommended that project evaluations be anonymous to separate the assessment of the proposal from the applicant’s CV and university, and that NSERC and CIHR follow SSHRC’s lead in sharing full application data to enable empirical study of the system.
The committee briefly discussed scheduling future appearances by tri-council representatives, with members agreeing to extend hearings if needed.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.