The Standing Committee on Science and Research (SRSR) has formally recommended that Canada’s three primary federal research granting agencies—the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)—eliminate all references to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) criteria from the competitive process of awarding federal research funding. The report, tabled in the House of Commons on September 21, argues that the current integration of EDI policies into grant applications is "discriminatory" and serves to undermine the core tenet of research excellence.
A Shifting Policy Landscape
For years, the "tri-agencies" have incrementally adjusted their operational frameworks to account for systemic barriers within the Canadian research ecosystem. This trajectory began in earnest following the 2017 federal budget, which emphasized inclusive growth. By 2018, the agencies began collecting demographic data from applicants to track the participation of equity-seeking groups, including women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities.
The rationale behind these early measures was to ensure that the Canadian research landscape reflected the country’s demographic diversity. Supporters of these measures have long argued that research teams with diverse backgrounds bring a wider array of perspectives, which in turn leads to more innovative and inclusive scientific outcomes. However, the committee’s recent report marks a significant pushback against this institutional shift, characterizing the current framework as a politicization of scientific inquiry.
The Committee’s Findings and Recommendations
The committee’s report, which comprises 20 distinct recommendations, stems from ten meetings during which 49 witnesses provided testimony. The committee members heard from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, ranging from university administrators and independent researchers to representatives from advocacy groups.
Central to the report’s argument is the claim that mandatory EDI statements and identity-based quotas create an undue administrative burden on researchers and detract from the quality of scientific work. The committee stated that these policies are "delivering bad value for Canadian taxpayers by weakening research excellence in Canada and undermining public trust and confidence in federally funded research."
Among the most controversial of the 20 recommendations is the call for a total ban on demographic quotas and proportionality targets. The committee also requested a comprehensive, independent audit of existing EDI policies to determine their actual effectiveness in achieving their stated goals. Furthermore, the report calls for a return to a "merit-first" system, where funding is determined solely by the scientific or academic potential of the project and the qualifications of the investigator.
The Internal Contradiction
Perhaps the most notable aspect of the report is its internal inconsistency. While the committee advises removing EDI from the award criteria, other recommendations within the same document suggest the continued implementation of EDI awareness training and the incentivization of inclusive research teams.
Conservative members of the committee, in a dissenting opinion, acknowledged this tension, noting that the final document was the result of a "mutual agreement to disagree." The Conservatives argued that the report preserves the diversity of viewpoints expressed by witnesses, though they maintained their own stance that all federal and academic institutions should prioritize individual merit over identity-based metrics.
Conversely, Liberal members of the committee filed a separate dissenting opinion, expressing concern that the push to remove EDI considerations would result in significant knowledge gaps. They cited the Partnership for Women’s Health Research Canada, noting that if research does not account for sex and gender, critical health outcomes—such as those related to pregnancy or specific physiological responses to medication—may be overlooked.
The Case for Inclusive Research Design
Proponents of EDI argue that the committee’s report fails to distinguish between "identity politics" and "research integrity." They contend that when researchers are trained to recognize their own biases, the resulting data is more robust. For instance, the inclusion of diverse populations in clinical trials is not merely a social goal; it is a clinical necessity for ensuring that pharmaceuticals and medical treatments are safe and effective for all Canadians.
The report does acknowledge this to a degree, recommending that while EDI should not be an "awarding criterion," it should remain a factor in the "review of research project content" where appropriate. This nuance suggests a potential compromise: that the design of the science should be inclusive, but the identity of the researcher should not be a scorecard metric.
Broader Implications for Canadian Academia
The impact of this report could be far-reaching, affecting how universities manage their own internal grant application processes. Many Canadian universities have aligned their internal hiring and grant distribution processes with the tri-agency standards to remain eligible for federal funding. A reversal at the federal level would likely force a cascade of policy reviews at the institutional level, potentially triggering a national conversation about academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
Furthermore, the report addresses issues beyond the EDI debate, focusing on the structural disadvantages faced by small and medium-sized post-secondary institutions. The committee recommends that the agencies stop using past grant success as a baseline for future funding, a practice that critics argue keeps larger, well-established research hubs at an unfair advantage while stifling innovation at smaller colleges and polytechnics.
Strengthening Francophone Research
A significant portion of the report is dedicated to the role of the French language in the Canadian research ecosystem. The committee recommends that the granting agencies take proactive steps to ensure that French-language applications are treated with full equity. This includes potential funding targets for French-language projects and support for publication in French, acknowledging that the current system often biases against researchers who work primarily in their native language.
Modernizing Assessment Metrics
The committee also endorsed the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). This declaration argues that research should be evaluated on its own merit, rather than the impact factor of the journal in which it is published. The committee suggests that the tri-agencies move away from traditional journal-based metrics, which often disadvantage early-career researchers or those in emerging fields.
One experimental recommendation involves the use of "blind" or de-identified applications, or even the random allocation of a portion of funding. The theory is that randomizing a subset of highly qualified applicants could reduce the systemic biases that sometimes occur in peer-review panels, where subjective preferences can unconsciously influence funding decisions.
Moving Forward: The Path to Implementation
As of now, the recommendations are advisory, not mandatory. The federal government will need to review the committee’s findings and provide an official response. Should the government move to implement these changes, it will face significant pressure from both sides of the debate.
The "pro-merit" faction argues that the current system has created a "cancel culture" within academia, where researchers are afraid to voice concerns about the efficacy of EDI policies for fear of professional repercussions. They hope the report serves as a catalyst for a more open, transparent, and objective funding environment.
The "pro-equity" faction, meanwhile, views the report as a regressive step that could dismantle years of progress in ensuring that the Canadian research workforce reflects the society it serves. They warn that ignoring demographic disparities will only serve to reinforce the status quo, limiting the breadth of research questions being asked and potentially damaging Canada’s international reputation as an inclusive, forward-thinking scientific hub.
Conclusion
The report, Impact of the Criteria for Awarding Federal Funding on Research Excellence in Canada, is more than just a procedural document; it is a reflection of a deep-seated ideological conflict regarding the purpose of public funding in a pluralistic society. Whether the outcome results in a complete overhaul of the current system or a subtle recalibration of existing policies remains to be seen. However, the sheer volume of testimony and the intensity of the debate suggest that the tri-agencies are at a critical juncture. The final determination on how these policies will evolve will likely define the parameters of Canadian scientific excellence for the next generation of researchers.
