I think we need to look at whether these committees are broadly representative of those who are part of the research ecosystem. I think we have seen gaps, to date, in representation of those who are the end-users of research, those who are familiar with policy implementation and those who come from the college system.
Our premise is that excellence, relevance and impact should be part of how we think about the investments we make in research. If you accept that premise, which I think is incumbent upon us to start thinking about very actively as we think about our research investments, then it stands to reason that the merit review and the review committees that we're making are representative of those in the research ecosystem.
I would say that another opportunity is for us to look at two-stage reviews. How can we look at research, particularly challenge-based research funding, that takes the first scientific and technical stage of review, but then has a second impact review that is also composed of committee members who are broadly representative of those who will be benefiting from the research?
In our view, it's about being more intentional about representation that's inclusive of those who are part of the research ecosystem.