Ms. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me. My name is Patanjali Kambhampati. I'm a professor of chemistry at McGill University working in the field of ultrafast laser science.
Why is that important? It's important because the field in which I work is characterized by excellence. Three Nobels have been awarded. Hopefully, there will be more—hopefully, for people like me or my colleagues—but that's not important. What matters is the pursuit of excellence. That's my main focus.
The views I share here are only my own and do not represent the university.
I was born in India to poor parents. My father, through determination, earned an engineering degree and gave me the chance to pursue science abroad. I emigrated first to the United States and then to Canada, which is now my scientific home. This background makes me sensitive to ideas of privilege and resources. They matter in life, but science cannot be reduced to social engineering. Its integrity rests on ability, discovery and results wherever they may arise.
Science is not redistribution. The purpose of science is not to spread jobs evenly or to promote identity-based rewards. Its purpose is to drive human progress. Every great advance came from enabling those with insight and skill to make discoveries, from thermodynamics powering the Industrial Revolution to quantum mechanics—both of which are my fields—giving rise to semiconductors, lasers and quantum computing. When these discoveries happened, all of humanity benefited. If we argue that science serves equality, it is not by lowering standards but by raising the human condition through knowledge and innovation.
Science is a beacon for merit, fairness and equality, or MFE. Not every child will become a scientist, just like not every child will become an athlete in the NBA. Giving out research positions and professorships, promotions and funding based upon external characteristics does not help the enterprise of science. As a path forward, I propose that science should be administered based upon principles of MFE. With regard to merit, science must reward those who produce discoveries and knowledge. With regard to fairness, evaluations must be free from ideological filters, instead focusing on rigour and originality. Finally, with regard to equality, everyone should have a chance to compete, but success must depend upon results, not demographics. If we stay true to MFE, then even those born far from privilege can rise, as did I.
There are observed facts. Even 15 years ago, faculty positions were sometimes restricted to women candidates or to those who even self-identified as women. On more than a dozen hiring committees in chemistry and physics, I saw that the vast majority of applicants, often 90%, were men, with a large share being Asian men. That reality in the applicant pool was not reflected in the policies guiding hiring, promotion and awards in the course of my 20 years.
In the past, women who happened to be scientists, such as Marie Curie, and women in my field, Ursula Keller in Switzerland and Margaret Murnane in the U.S., succeeded because their work demanded recognition. Today, however, some faculty slots are created explicitly for optics rather than for excellence, undermining trust for both men and women. Young people see this clearly, even if they cannot articulate it openly.
The politicization of science is not unprecedented. My colleague Anna Krylov at USC, a distinguished scientist, has written eloquently about the perils of politicizing science, drawing upon her experience growing up in the Soviet Union. Her warning was simple: When ideology dictates who can enter science, discovery itself is diminished. Canada should take that warning seriously.
Then there's the cost of misplaced criteria. The true cost of misplaced criteria is not merely extra paperwork. It is the slowing, halting or even reversal of scientific progress. The consequences for Canada's economy, security and quality of life would be catastrophic. History gives us a clear warning. Once again, in the Soviet Union, ideology overruled biology under Trofim Lysenko. Genetics was declared politically unacceptable. An entire generation of discoveries was lost, farmers starved and Soviet science never regained its standing.
When we politicize science, we risk repeating those mistakes. We rob not only the scientist, but every young person—