Thank you very much for inviting me to contribute to your deliberations.
I would like to start by noting that my comments today are based on my experiences in the domain of natural sciences and to a lesser extent health sciences.
I would like to touch upon three issues.
First, there are roughly four distinct and different types of research that government funding agencies support: basic research, which is the search for new knowledge; applied research, which uses that knowledge to solve specific problems; engineering research, which transforms those solutions into usable systems; and innovation, which then deploys these systems into society. Each of these has different objectives and outcomes. It is important, therefore, that any governance or accountability effort ensures that each is evaluated using appropriate metrics.
There is, however, one common and important output: the training of highly qualified personnel. More than 50% of science Ph.D.s now work and drive innovation outside academia. They are in demand not only because they are technology- and data-savvy, but because they are trained to think creatively and solve complex problems.
Second, these four areas are an integral part of the discovery to innovation ecosystem. To start with, I would like to emphasize the importance of sustaining discovery research, because innovation ultimately depends on it. Importantly, only the government is in a position to fund discovery. To that end, Canada's investment in research capacity has not kept pace with costs. The real purchasing power of an NSERC discovery grant, for example, has largely stagnated over the past two decades, while research expenses have risen substantially. Consequently, grants today support less research activity than they did 15 to 20 years ago.
Third, we must ensure that our discovery to innovation ecosystem operates on a level playing field and is guided by transparent evaluation procedures. On the whole, the current process is well regarded internationally, but there is room for improvement. This is where this committee can play a role in continuing to push for change that further improves the system.
I would like to briefly touch upon four areas for your consideration.
First, governance must recognize that current evaluation systems can inherit and amplify past biases. There is substantial evidence that prestigious awards and recognition histories, all commonly used as indicators of excellence, have themselves historically reflected disparities related to gender, race and other factors. When these are used in grant evaluations, earlier inequities can cascade forward, affecting funding levels and future competitiveness. Governance framework must, therefore, examine whether the criteria and indicators used in assessment unintentionally reproduce structural barriers. The objective is not to weaken standards, but to ensure that Canada's research funding system identifies and supports genuine excellence rather than reinforcing historical patterns that may obscure it.
Second, external assessments of our research systems have noted that they tend to be risk-averse, favouring proposals with incremental outcomes over true innovation—high-risk innovation. From a governance perspective, this underscores the importance of mechanisms that can identify and mitigate such tendencies.
Third, fairness requires mechanisms to enhance transparency. Presently, applicants can only challenge procedural issues, not substantive assessment errors. However, evaluators are human, and mistakes do happen. Governance systems should consider structured appeal mechanisms, as well as additional transparency measures that would enhance accountability. In this regard, the European Research Council's approach is worth considering.
Additionally, securing participation of qualified independent international panellists, as has been done by the National Science Foundation in the U.S. for many years, would further strengthen the perception of impartiality. With virtual meetings now common, international participation is more feasible than ever.
To conclude, a strong science policy is not only about funding decisions; it is about ensuring that the system consistently identifies and enables excellence and innovation.
Thank you.