Evidence of meeting #111 for Science and Research in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Valerie Bradford
Thank you. That's our time.
Now we'll start our five-minute round.
We'll start with MP Kitchen.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. It's greatly appreciated.
Dr. Zhu, I understand that you can hear us but that we can't hear you, unfortunately. I would appreciate any statements or anything from this conversation that you might be able to add from your point of view.
Ultimately, you know.... It's interesting; we're now looking at a study on federal funding of research excellence. The study we just finished was dealing with the capstone issue and research. We had the tri-council as well as the NRC here on Tuesday. I asked them at that time a very simple question about their goal. Was it based on the individual merit of, one, the scholars applying for the funding, and two, the quality of their proposed research? They agreed with that. That's what they did.
Dr. Kerr, you made that statement today when you talked about discovery grants, etc. Those are there. Dr. Zhu talked about similar aspects. We didn't hear all of it, but I think he would agree with that. He also talked about the buzzwords.
When we look at issues such as DEI and this aspect of it, and these buzzwords that people want to hear, the concern we have is about what we're hearing from researchers around the country who believe that when they apply for that research, everything is based on those two points, those two goals. Yet they're finding that there's a third one in there, DEI, which steps in the way of what they're presenting, when it should be based on the quality of their research.
Dr. Kerr, your point is that if that person isn't knowledgeable in that area, then they shouldn't be doing that research, but that's where the funding goes. We get a lot of crossover from basic natural sciences to health care sciences and even to social sciences. There might be some overlap, so there can be some crossover there. How do we ensure that when it's done, the people who are making this decision on federal funding and providing that funding for excellent research...? When we're talking about federal money, which we are responsible for, how do we ensure that it's based on those two principles and not something else?
Professor, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, and Chair, Committee on Discovery Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, As an Individual
Thank you for that question. I do indeed fully believe in and support the idea that excellence should be the defining criterion here. Let me just say that there is a third category that is practically universally present within granting evaluation, and that is the quality of the training program. That's part of it as well.
There are two points that I will very quickly try to make in response. The first is that sometimes, as was commented on by a colleague witness here, we want to include a recognition of diversity under some circumstances—that is to say, when it is appropriate—in research design. I will give you an example of why this can sometimes be absolutely vital.
Everybody's car has airbags these days. Those airbags are adaptive. That is to say, the weight of the person in the front seat and the proximity of that person to the airbag determine how strongly those airbags will explode onto you if you're in a collision. When those airbags first came out, they tended to kill small women and also children. The reason for this was that the research that was done to back this up was basically done on young men. The initial proposition around airbags was to protect young men 25 years old and under who didn't wear seat belts. The result of not including gender in the consideration here was simply that you killed a lot of people who really didn't need to die. It can be very appropriate for research design to consider aspects of diversity.
The other part is the training program. That's where—
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I apologize for interrupting. We have limited time.
Professor, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, and Chair, Committee on Discovery Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, As an Individual
I'm sorry. Please go ahead.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I understand that aspect. That's the research. The person designing that research hopefully is looking at.... Sometimes it gets missed. I get that part. I think the public gets that part.
That is not necessarily what the DEI is about. It's a question of whether that research was given to an individual researcher because they met that DEI quality or standard, as opposed to the quality of their research. When we're dealing with the research, the quality of the research one would like to think is covering all of that aspect.
It's a huge challenge along those lines. I get that. We get that we need to understand that with our researchers and provide that. That is what those committees are looking at, but the committees should be making that decision based on the quality of the research and the presentation of that research, as opposed to it being presented based on buzzwords that might meet certain standards. I appreciate that.
Dr. Kaufmann—
Liberal
November 28th, 2024 / 4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me start with one question for Mr. Kaufmann, and then I'll ask Professor Kerr a follow-up question.
We've undertaken many studies in this committee. Earlier on in our mandate, there was a study on indigenous traditional knowledge, something I'd never really experienced on my own. I'm not a researcher, although I have family members who have done research and have done Ph.D.s in various categories, so the indigenous traditional knowledge was a new one for me. We learned at that point about different kinds of knowledge that are not in the mainstream and how they can help us cover more areas of research with a better depth of understanding. I certainly felt that way, in any case, after doing that study.
The question to you is based on what you have just testified on. Do you not think these are valuable perspectives to learn from, and that these communities deserve to have a say? They're certainly not the mainstream. I know we talk about buzzwords. English is not my first language, so I'm not sure I agree with a lot of the terminology that I'm hearing in this. It's not something that I'm used to. But we would have never heard about some of these perspectives if we had just gone with, let's be honest, your typical white man doing research.
Go ahead.
Professor, University of Buckingham, As an Individual
The first thing to say is that I don't think it would just be white men if you had a merit-based competition. I just think that's a bit of a straw man.
On indigenous knowledge, I think there's plenty to learn, but I think that if it is of value to science, then it will form part of science. If it is folklore, then it will be studied by folklorists. I do not think there should be any special dispensation for indigenous knowledge.
I actually think that those people who would try to elevate indigenous knowledge to the same level as science—falsifiable, measurable, testable, Popperian science—are actually a threat to the pursuit of truth. I have to say that I find this idea—that we can put indigenous knowledge, just because it's indigenous, on the same level as scientific knowledge that has been accrued through the scientific method—to be deeply counter-enlightenment and against what should be the mission of the councils, and against what the public would support.
I don't think this is something that should be in the university, unless it is in accord with science. It may be that there are certain medicines and scientific knowledge about medicines that are informed by indigenous knowledge. In that sense, that's great, but should we have any special dispensation or affirmative action to get those perspectives in? No, I don't think so.
Liberal
Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS
I appreciate your perspective. I don't agree with it, but that's my perspective. I'll let another MP follow up on that if they so wish.
Let me now go to Professor Kerr.
I know you're a professor of biology, but you also talked about discovery grants, evaluation of grants and so on. Not only do you deal with researchers, but you're also dealing with students. In your experience, what happens if we don't have diversity and inclusion considerations in some of this funding, for example for women, or for people who don't speak English as their first or even second language, or for people of different ethnic backgrounds? I'd just like to hear your perspective.
Professor, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, and Chair, Committee on Discovery Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, As an Individual
We're less good at discovery. This is what happens when you leave half of your team on the sidelines and you only play the other half. I have had a great privilege over my career of having a very diverse group. I don't apply litmus tests of any sort, beyond interest in stuff that I do and capacity to do that stuff.
My experience has been that accounting for the ways in which people have different lived experiences than I do makes my research program stronger. I'm not here to talk about my research, but I could quite easily point to what are, by the h-index, my most influential publications. Had I not been somebody who thought carefully about how to include people who looked and experienced things very differently than I do, those publications would never have happened. Again, I'm not here to talk about myself, but some of those papers have been influential. With a monolithic team—
Liberal
Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS
We appreciate hearing about your experience, which is why you're here today, so I personally would like to hear that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Valerie Bradford
Perhaps Dr. Kerr could submit an expanded answer in writing. We always accept those.
Thank you.
Now we will turn to MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Kaufmann, in 2023, the U.S. supreme court banned positive discrimination in university admissions. We are talking about a country that has historically been a pioneer in the area of DEI. The decision comes in the wake of 45 bills in 33 states and two bills in the House of Representatives.
What should we take from the developments south of the border? Are they not an admission that DEI policies are flawed?
Professor, University of Buckingham, As an Individual
I'm very much in favour of the approach I've outlined, the affirmative action that's been advocated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Students for Fair Admissions case, which, let's not forget, was brought principally because Asian Americans were being discriminated against. Let's remember that the flip side.... Really, “affirmative action” is a euphemism for discrimination against certain groups: Asians, whites and males, essentially. There's also discrimination against conservatives, but that's not happening through affirmative action. What I would say is to look at that decision, which has been supported not just by a majority of white Americans, but by a majority of Hispanic Americans, Black Americans and Asian Americans. This is a consensus value.
There have been a number of referendums in California to try to reintroduce affirmative action because it's been repealed by popular initiative. However, every time they try it, it's always voted down, because the public does not want racial preferences in the allocation, whether it be university places at Harvard or whether it be research grants. That's against the values.
I mentioned that, in the Canadian survey, 59% want a colour-blind approach, while only 29% want a colour-conscious approach. Yet, what is the approach that's being pursued? It's a colour-conscious approach in the tri-council. I think it is out of step with public opinion. They may be able to get away with it for a little longer, but ultimately I don't think this is going to do the research body any good.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Kaufmann, some witnesses have pointed to the unintended consequences of DEI criteria, specifically the fact that they fuel misogynistic and racial tensions.
What can be done to ease those tensions while preserving the goal of fostering equity?
Professor, University of Buckingham, As an Individual
Well, I think misogynistic approaches are contrary to the idea of judging individuals as individuals and not by their gender. I just think that the classical liberal, merit-based approach, where we're judging strictly on the basis of the individual, is more than sufficient. Gender discrimination is against the law; it's also against the classical liberal position. I would also add that the research—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Valerie Bradford
That's our time. You can always expand on your answer in writing if you care to.
Thank you.
The final two and a half minutes go to MP Cannings.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Thank you.
I just want to give Dr. Kerr a chance to fully answer a question that he got cut off on.
You said your first part, and then I think you started to talk about training. I'll let you finish that. Go right ahead.
Professor, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, and Chair, Committee on Discovery Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, As an Individual
Thank you, MP Cannings.
Of course, academics are infamous for being long-winded, and I'm no exception.
The area in which equity, diversity and inclusion are accounted for in specific ways is the training plan, and essentially nowhere else. Therefore, it is not part of the quality of the proposal, fundamentally, unless there is a need to include diversity in terms of how it's evaluated. The idea here is this: Is the door open in training to everybody, or is the door open to a selection of people?
An example that is extremely important to me of how this has been done successfully in the past is an anglophone professor working in the common language of science, which is English, who has implemented a number of very specific actions in the context of his research group and in terms of his department and, indeed, his university to attempt to foster and protect the use of French language in the workplace.
I'm not sure why we would want to do anything else than that. These are opportunities for us to take the whole team and enable them to participate in the academic exercise, but that is evaluated in the application process. The goal is simply to say whether this person knows how to train people who are not necessarily other white males.