Evidence of meeting #26 for Science and Research in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Distinguished University Professor, As an Individual
What is it that we want to do? That's the key question.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you.
Professor Babul, MP Baldinelli's time is up. I'm sorry.
We will now proceed to MP Rana for five minutes.
MP Rana, please go ahead.
Liberal
Aslam Rana Liberal Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for your time.
Professor Babul, you have worked inside some of the strongest academic governance systems we have. In your experience, how do we strengthen transparency in federal science funding without crossing the line into revealing the inner workings of confidential peer review?
Distinguished University Professor, As an Individual
NSERC, for example—I'm most familiar with NSERC—has gone a long way towards this. This year I was asked to review a grant, and I was explicitly told that my report would be sent to the applicant—anonymized, of course, but it would be sent. That's one way of bringing in transparency.
The European Research Council goes further. They record transcripts of the discussion that takes place at the panel level. They anonymize it, but they release that to the applicants as well. This way you can see the discussion is focusing on science and merit, rather than on whether somebody is coming from a particular background or school, or some factor that has relatively little to do with accomplishment.
These are the kinds of examples that one can do. I think the European Research Council's model is probably the most open and transparent today, yet it still preserves the anonymity of the system.
Liberal
Aslam Rana Liberal Hamilton Centre, ON
You have seen how international collaborations judge Canada. How important is it that Canada preserve the perception that our funding decisions are based on merit? Also, in your opinion, what has most threatened that perception today?
Distinguished University Professor, As an Individual
The biggest challenge that Canadians face with respect to international partners is less to do with perceptions of bias within the system. This is much more of an issue internally.
From the outside perspective, our biggest challenge is funding. We do not have sufficient funds to hold our own in international collaborations and to play leadership roles. That goes back to what I mentioned before—funding has stagnated over 20 years.
In real dollars, we buy less today than what we could achieve 20 years ago. This is true for the discovery grants, and this is true for CRC. Various reports that had been commissioned by the tri-councils have more or less said exactly the same thing. It really comes down to this: Do I have the capacity and the human resources to participate fully and carry my weight in an international collaboration?
Liberal
Aslam Rana Liberal Hamilton Centre, ON
If you had to choose to protect your peer review confidentiality at all costs or expand data transparency as far as possible, which principle protects Canada's research ecosystem long term, and why?
Distinguished University Professor, As an Individual
We don't have to choose between those two. There is a well-established middle ground where the transcripts, for example, can be released, the dialogue can be released, but completely anonymized. I had no problems with my report being released to the applicant. I just made sure that I couldn't be identified when I was writing the report. The main thing is that I was being genuine in my criticisms and in in my praise. That's the important thing. The focus should be on the science.
Liberal
Aslam Rana Liberal Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
Professor Shariff, in the context of research funding, what types of transparency actually build trust with the public and which kinds unintentionally erode it?
Professor, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I think what Dr. Babul was saying there is accurate in terms of funding and hiring, recognizing that people are being judged for their abilities rather than for alignment with any political motives. This is the best way.
Transparency is a great incentive for people to maintain that focus. If they know that there are conversations and that their decisions are able to be monitored, they will focus on the right things.
Liberal
Aslam Rana Liberal Hamilton Centre, ON
What is the single biggest risk you see for the public's trust in Canadian science governance if we get this wrong?
Professor, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
It would be to add external politicization: to micromanage grants to make it seem like the government is trying to pick winners and losers. Again, the path to the U.S. is the cautionary example here. I would encourage us to do anything to not go down that road.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Time is up for MP Rana.
We will now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.
Please go ahead.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Oransky, public investments are significant, amounting to billions of dollars per year. When a system funds, assesses and supervises its own mechanisms, is this self-regulation sufficient to guarantee public credibility, in your opinion?
Executive Director, Center for Scientific Integrity Inc.
There's a conflict of interest no matter how you try to look at a system and assess it, judge it or even hold it accountable.
There are other models where if you federate this.... Europe has not gone in this direction. One might imagine, for example, Europe having a federated system where each of the states, each of the nations, has their own funding and funding mechanisms, but also where everyone is accountable to one organization.
I take Dr. Shariff's point about the journey to the U.S. Look at the example of China. I would also urge against any measures that would take you closer or on a journey to what China has gone through. China is getting, as you may have seen, many audits and is very highly ranked. People talk about this, and there have been stories recently about it. What often isn't mentioned is that China also has the highest retraction rate of any country.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
What do you think of the idea of creating an independent function separate from the executive, like the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, whose mandate would be to analyze the government's scientific decisions, but also to assess their transparency and performance?
Executive Director, Center for Scientific Integrity Inc.
I think it's quite powerful. If you look at the U.S., we have two major agencies. I would point to the Office of Research Integrity in terms of biomedical sciences, and the National Science Foundation's Office of Inspector General. In an ideal world, those operate independently. They have their own subpoena power.
I will, unfortunately, have to second what Dr. Shariff has said about the U.S. I'd just express a lot of concern that those organization have been really struck—they've been decimated, in fact—by the number of people who are working there. This isn't a government that says it is very concerned about fraud, waste and abuse.
Again, I think independence is crucial. I would urge the government to consider an organization that truly is independent—like an auditor general or an inspector general—that would operate that way.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
We will end this panel with two minutes for MP DeRidder and then two minutes for MP Noormohamed.
MP DeRidder, you will have two minutes. Please go ahead.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I would like to start by using my time to put in a notice of motion, please. It's just a notice. They're passing it around now. Thank you, Clerk.
This is the motion:
That the Standing Committee on Science and Research undertake a study on tent encampments and their intersection with the drug crisis in Canada, with a focus on research gaps, data limitations, and opportunities for innovation; that the committee invite witnesses including, but not limited to, federal departments and agencies, academic researchers, public health experts, Indigenous organizations, municipal representatives, and community-based service providers; that the committee hold no less than three meetings on this study; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.
Also, at the very beginning, the sound was a bit off. May I request that we get written beginning statements into the committee, just in case we might have missed something from the sound at the very beginning? That's just a request.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you so much.
I think I have time for one question.
Azim, this question would be for you.
I recently watched a panel from the Canadian Science Policy Centre conference. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry praised the impact of DEI policies on Canada's science and research sector. We've heard a very different story here in committee. A couple of witnesses have come out and said that it's undermining our research. There are lot of things happening.
You said yourself that “Science and scholarship work best when everyone is invited to participate” and that DEI policies can potentially leave “talent on the table”. Given the increased global competition for top researchers, can Canada afford policies that risk sidelining talent rather than maximizing it?
Professor, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
This gets to the challenge of EDI being such a broad net of policies and omissions.
It's important to separate two things here. One is this issue of removing barriers and maintaining equality of access. That's a way to strengthen science by bringing the best candidates in. There are processes that remove barriers. There are ones that add barriers.
That's what I was talking about the last time I was here, in September. They should be removing barriers rather than adding barriers, and making sure everyone is on board.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Do you think we're currently adding barriers with our applications?
Professor, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Yes. With the Canada research chairs program, I think we're adding barriers with the demographic quota aspect.