Science and Research Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2024

[Dr. Ivan Oransky]

I want to sort of make a pitch in response, if I may, that perhaps as this committee—and, of course, the government—is considering how to look at research, how to examine it and how to assess it, it might also consider some contributions and funding that are specifically delineated for looking at problems in the literature—in other words, sleuthing behaviour, which is what is mostly done right now by volunteers, even though publishers and universities benefit from their work.

If you look, for example, at the case of the Office of Research Integrity, which is responsible in the U.S. for oversight of research at the National Institutes of Health and some other agencies, its budget is about $15 million versus the $48-billion budget, roughly, in U.S. dollars, of the NIH.

I would have you all maybe consider whether or not there is a way to use some of the funding that is now being used to fund research directly, to fund analysis of that research and to actually keep a check on it. I believe the public will be much more confident in what it reads about what it's funding with its tax dollars and what eventually, in many cases and certainly in the case that you mentioned, could contribute, if it's done properly, to better health and better outcomes.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

One of the concerns we've been hearing from academia is about the declining trust in their institutions. How would we ensure that if folks are getting research dollars, those dollars are being used appropriately, so that when I go back to my constituents and talk about these research dollars being spent, I can say they are being spent well? Are there tweaks to the...? We keep hearing about this peer review process. Are there things we need to do that are maybe different from the peer review?

[Dr. Ivan Oransky]

In general, one method or approach that a number of organizations are taking—and it's still a work in progress—is to have everything be much more open. That could mean publishing data openly, making sure that anyone who wants to check those figures or take a look at the images, or whatever it was, has an opportunity to do that. That could be other researchers, or it could be the general public. If you publish your data openly, it's at least a statement that you are going to stand behind it. In fact, again, more people can look at it.

In terms of the peer review system, that is obviously a larger conversation that I'd be happy to have another time. However, the idea that a number of people have floated is that we need to simply push far less through the peer review system and that we need to acknowledge its limitations. I actually still believe that peer review is very powerful and important, but I also think that the public and many people even in science have been sold a bill of goods about how much peer review can actually catch and how good of a system it is. It's being sold sort of as a good housekeeping seal of approval when, in fact, it is incredibly porous. I think that if we're honest about that, trust will follow.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Okay.

You said that you'd like to talk about peer review more broadly. Can you point us in the direction that you're thinking there?

[Dr. Ivan Oransky]

There's a meeting every four years, sort of like the Olympics, held in Chicago that I heartily recommend. It's the peer review congress. People are actually looking in an empirical way—in other words, in an evidence-based way—at where peer review could improve and how there are various ways to do that. The fact, though, is that, at the moment, publishers are jamming millions of papers, as you all heard earlier today, through a system that simply is overstretched. You can't really expect efficient quality control until you acknowledge that the system just doesn't have the resources.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I think you mentioned this earlier, and I just want to get you corrected on this. In addition to peer review, is there a mechanism that we can use when assessing these projects to fund?

[Dr. Ivan Oransky]

I think there is, and it actually is sort of, in some ways, consistent with peer review. I suppose that may seem contradictory, but hear me out for a moment. I think that instead of looking at citation counts, which are sort of born of the very pernicious “publish or perish” incentives, and turning everything into a metric, we should look at the quality of the research and look at a handful of papers that, maybe, a particular individual is publishing—and maybe a larger number for a research project. We heard earlier from one of my colleagues on the panel that there are people who are excluded from that because they are—

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I'm sorry, but that's our time.

We're going to turn to our next questioner now.

MP Diab, you have six minutes, please.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today as we continue with our study of how we award federal research dollars.

If I can, in the couple of minutes I have, turn my attention to Ms. Evans to talk a bit about Research Canada and health discovery. Your organization is dedicated to advancing health research and health innovation, and you mentioned that you have over 130-plus members, I guess through collaborative work and so on with various partners.

In the health field, how do we ensure that those funding decisions are independent from any interference, whether it's political or otherwise? I will put it in the context of since the pandemic—maybe even before that, but we've certainly seen it since. Have you seen a rise in the distrust of researchers and of research generally? What would you say the role of a parliamentarian should be in that? Again, I'm asking questions relevant to your expertise and experience in health, and to your role in that.

[Alison Evans]

Okay, I heard a few questions in there.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

No, that's fine. Take your time.

[Alison Evans]

I'll start in and hopefully get to some points that are important to you.

First of all, I really welcome the fact that we have a parliamentary health research caucus that is non-partisan. It has leaders from all parties. It gives us an opportunity to bring the latest health research and innovation topics to Parliament and to policy-makers. In fact, we consult to hear what some of the most important themes are on the minds of people with constituents they're representing.

I think it's safe to say that health is on all of our minds, all the time, whether it's our own, our loved ones', our colleagues' or the people we represent. It's a great privilege to be able to bring the latest. I think that the pandemic actually, in many ways, increased Canadians' focus on the importance of health research. We had a very incredible response with mission-driven and rapid response research. The government worked across departments with companies—huge multinational pharmaceutical companies—and with innovation and research hubs at universities all across the country. Every part of this country was involved in that response. We've come out with lessons learned that will make us even stronger the next time.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you for that.

I would agree with you. Sitting at home when COVID hit, just like most people were sitting in their homes, I was a provincial politician at the time. There were a lot of, not discussions, but phone calls or emails with constituents at the time. Certainly, from reading social media, and some papers that were still left at that time, there was the need for Canada to do more, to do better or to have its own research labs, and we wondered how this could happen and what we could ensure for the next time.

When we move forward a couple of years later, when the pandemic was over and when everybody was out of their homes and their basements, and away from their screens and so on, it seems to me that the conversation then shifted quite a bit. There were still people thinking that, but others were sort of a bit cynical about research, and the discussion, for many, also just shifted.

How would you help us address some of that? Would you say there is any value, or what would be the value in research projects that might contribute more broadly to this type of research?

[Alison Evans]

I think that it depends, again, on where these discussions are happening. The discussions I'm involved in every day are looking at things like how artificial intelligence is going to revolutionize the delivery of health care. When we think about the incredible costs of health care delivery, about the budgets of the provinces and about the way we're trying to revolutionize things, there's actually quite a bit of excitement around the science.

I can think of a huge announcement in Ontario, just a week or so ago, between Roche Canada and Invest Ontario, which is going to see more than 250 new jobs created there for clinical research. I can think of researchers we've lost to American universities, and they are really hoping to come back to Canada and hire Canadians into their highly technically advanced manufacturing industries.

I think there's a lot of excitement. We have to balance our questions and our healthy debates by also applauding the excellence and the incredible work that is going on, and by allowing ourselves occasionally to be excited about the future we're building.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'm hearing that from you.

The more I hear, the more I tend to agree that artificial intelligence.... For most of us, it's not something that we were privy to, got education on or even knew anything about. I'm just wondering now.... I'm actually excited that the young generation is learning about it.

Thank you for that.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's our time.

MP Blanchette-Joncas, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first questions are for you, Ms. Watts‑Rynard.

In your remarks, you talked about the possibility of anonymizing funding applications in relation to CVs. That's what I heard.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this proposal, which could eliminate certain biases.

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

I'm not thinking so much about anonymizing the applications. What I'm suggesting is that in the criteria to assess project proposals, there be a greater emphasis on the degree to which somebody has had previous funding and has published. That doesn't align with the type of research that is happening within the polytechnic and college sectors, so they're already behind the eight ball when it comes to having their proposals approved.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Okay.

If I understand your proposal correctly, a researcher's funding history shouldn't determine their future funding.

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

That's right. That would probably be the only way you can ever really get around the idea that we're putting a lot of money into the same institutions for the same kinds of research, with the same kind of researchers with a similar background. If you want to expand the kind of research being done beyond what's been done in the past, you really have to take a look at the criteria being used.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Based on the same logic, do you agree that the funding received shouldn't influence the number of research chairs awarded to institutions and researchers?

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

The ability to bring expertise to the table doesn't speak to what the past research history has been. When we think about trying to bring in any new kind of research or any new kind of researcher—anything that is beyond what has been done before—it speaks to what the review criteria are and what questions we are asking. In order to have any kind of expansion of what research is in the country, we need to look beyond what has happened before.

I don't have a problem with one institution having multiple research chairs or research centres, because you can have more than one expertise in a large institution. However, I have some difficulty with the idea that research funding has largely been concentrated in a very few when there are clearly very valuable contributions to be made by the wider community of our researchers.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I understand. Thank you, Ms. Watts‑Rynard.

I'll ask Mr. Oransky my next questions.

I would like to hear your thoughts on publications. Professor Yves Gingras' work confirms that the bibliometrics system was originally designed to identify publications. However, the system is now used as a selection tool for awarding funding. The system encourages researchers to produce many articles in order to increase their h‑index and impact factor.

In your opinion, does this encourage the proliferation of forced or fraudulent articles, which are often subsequently withdrawn?

[Dr. Ivan Oransky]

Thank you.

I think there is a direct relationship between gaming these metrics—you mentioned the h-index—and other similar metrics and the production of, I would certainly say, sloppy research. In other words, it's the overproduction of research.

There is a tension between quantity and quality. I think the system has so overemphasized and so over-rewarded quantity that quality has suffered a great deal. We often say at Retraction Watch that fraud, misconduct and sloppiness are all born of the same mother, and that mother is the pressure to publish.

Now, for some researchers, and I would argue most researchers, that simply means pushing harder and trying to do better work. For some small percentage, although I don't think it's as small a percentage as a lot of researchers, scientists and policy-makers would like to think it is, that means people commit fraud, turn to a paper mill or in some way fudge their results.

I think this is a big driver of problematic research.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Oransky, the main measurement tool currently used is the impact factor. It's used in particular by review panels and by the peers who sit on them.

If the impact factors were removed, this potentially fraudulent production mechanism could be stopped, in an attempt to increase the flow of funding and gain international exposure based on these assessment criteria.