Dear colleagues,
I wanted to alert you to recent developments at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research (SRSR Committee) which suggest a potential for political interference in Tri-Council Agency granting (the Tri-Council Agencies include the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [SSHRC], the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [NSERC], and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR]).
As Robin Whitaker, Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) President, said at the recent November CAUT Council meeting, “federal politicians are attacking equity commitments in the federal granting agencies on the basis that they are at odds with research excellence.”
In June, the SRSR Committee adopted a motion to study the impact of the various criteria for awarding federal funding on research excellence in Canada and assess whether modifications should be made.
The SRSR Committee then requested disaggregated data from the Tri-Councils for the past five years of all submitted applications (whether or not ultimately successful), including demographic data such as applicants’ responses to the EDI questionnaire and information concerning co-Principal Investigators, collaborators and student/post-doctoral assistants involved in the project. Adjudication committees assessing the files were also to be identified. It then extended that request to cover the years 2000–2025.
The potential exposure of this data raised the alarm at CAUT. Recently, CAUT sent out an ‘Open Letter’ requesting Canadian scholars to vehemently oppose this request which acquired several thousand signatories in a matter of days. It then liaised between the Tri-Councils (who were resisting the request), and the SRSR Committee. On November 5, the SRSR Committee revised its request. It replaced ‘disaggregated data’ with ‘aggregated (anonymized) data’, thereby addressing CAUT’s concern to protect the essential confidentiality of Tri-Council grant applications and assessment.
CAUT is continuing to monitor how the SRSR Committee and the Tri-Councils proceed to implement this study. It will continue to advocate for the need to defend EDI in Peer Review of research quality and Academic Freedom as essential to research excellence.
In the wake of the
Alberta Government’s Bill 18, which would have led to political interference in the peer review process, these actions by the SRSR Committee read as especially concerning.
We will continue to update members on any ongoing advocacy to the federal government by the CAUT on this important matter. We recognize it to be a priority not only for our researchers but for those who support that research – in other words, all of our AASUA constituencies.
Sincerely,
Gordon Swaters
AASUA President