This House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research meeting studied the impact of criteria for awarding federal funding on research excellence in Canada. Witnesses included Imogen Coe (Toronto Metropolitan University), Mark Green (Queen’s University), Dave Snow (University of Guelph), Tamil Kendall (Partnership for Women's Health Research Canada), Gad Saad (University of Mississippi), Nadia Hasan (York University), Robert Thomas (Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship), and Eric Kaufmann (University of Buckingham).
Imogen Coe argued that research excellence in 2025 must be defined broadly to include inclusivity, ethical grounding, and diverse perspectives, as narrow definitions miss impact and relevance. She recommended updating federal funding criteria to reward rigorous, fair, innovative, and socially responsive research, citing evidence that diverse teams produce higher impact and that excluding diversity compromises safety and wastes resources.
Mark Green emphasized that NSERC’s evaluation processes are rigorous and flexible, with criteria like researcher excellence, proposed research, and training of highly qualified personnel. He stressed the importance of intertwining Indigenous and Western knowledge for expanded excellence, and recommended embracing the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment to capture community impact beyond traditional metrics.
Dave Snow expressed concern about the integration of activist equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) into granting agencies, arguing it undermines objective knowledge creation and public trust. He recommended amending enabling legislation to enshrine political neutrality, removing all EDI references from agency guidelines, and eliminating EDI-focused grants, disagreeing with witnesses who support such criteria.
Tamil Kendall argued that diversity and inclusion in research populations and teams are critical for excellence, citing examples like sex-based differences in drug effects and the need for greater accountability in sex and gender analysis. She recommended establishing a public repository of findings, reporting participant demographics in studies, and requiring applicants to report past sex and gender results.
Gad Saad asserted that meritocracy is the sole basis for research excellence, calling EDI criteria an affront to individual dignity and scientific truth. He criticized specific hiring restrictions based on identity at universities like Waterloo and UBC, and argued that such policies harm Canada’s global competitiveness and drive researchers abroad.
Nadia Hasan stressed the importance of funding research on racism and discrimination, and strengthening community-academic partnerships through streamlined application processes. She warned against political censorship trends seen in the U.S., and argued that diversity in research ecosystems leads to better innovation and impact.
Robert Thomas argued for merit-based funding and hiring, opposing identity-based criteria and mandatory EDI statements as infringements on moral autonomy. He shared an anecdote about a colleague valued for his sexual orientation rather than competence, and warned that preference falsification undermines genuine agreement.
Eric Kaufmann described EDI as a political left-wing ideology that reduces research excellence and risks losing public trust, citing declining confidence in higher education. He recommended a colour-blind merit approach and warned that viewpoint diversity is lacking in academia, which harms the social sciences and humanities.
Procedurally, the committee agreed to Mr. Snow tabling his report and a list of grant titles he identified as activist or ideological.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.