Canada’s overemphasis on gender and racial diversity in scientific research is damaging science and the country, the renowned Canadian psychologist and Harvard University professor Steven Pinker recently told a parliamentary committee.
“The promotion of diversity in gender and ethnicity at the same time that the diversity of opinion is constricted by censorship, cancellation or intellectual monocultures undermines public trust in science,” Pinker told the parliamentary standing committee on science and research on Sept. 15.
The committee is studying the impact that federal funding criteria have on the quality of research programs in Canada. Ottawa spends about $4.5 billion each year to support research at post-secondary institutions.
The committee, which is resuming its study of this topic from the prior legislative session, has reignited debate about the role of diversity in scientific research.
In written submissions some academics argued research excellence can only be achieved by hiring academics of different genders and races. Others said such diversity is no guarantee of quality research and can prevent the best researchers from being funded.
“A diversity of viewpoints … is necessary to do science properly,” Pinker said.
Pinker, a cognitive scientist and two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist for non-fiction, said the strongest fallacy people are vulnerable to is the “my-side bias.” This is the belief that people who agree with us are right and those who disagree are “ignorant, evil or both,” he said.
“People are poor at spotting their own biases,” he said. “The reason that science can proceed without these blind spots is because we’re much better at spotting others’ blind spots.”
But at many universities today, diversity means having “people who look different but think alike,” he said.
The best research happens when universities encourage a diversity of viewpoints, Pinker says. Racial and gender diversity does not necessarily translate into diversity of thought.
“Diversity of skin colour, diversity of chromosomes is no guarantee of better science,” he said.
‘Able-bodied white men’
Like Pinker, Azim Shariff, a social psychologist at the University of British Columbia and a Canada Research Chair in moral psychology, said he had concerns about research funding being restricted to people who meet diversity quotas.
Shariff, who taught in the U.S. after studying in Canada, returned to Canada because of the Canada Research Chair program.
The program provides up to $1.4 million over seven years to leading researchers across Canada and is used to recruit researchers from other countries.
Since 2019, the program has required universities to have plans to increase the number of research chairs who are women, LGBTQ, racialized and people with disabilities. Schools can lose research chair positions if they are not meeting diversity quotas.
This program requirement stems from a 2017 court order issued in response to a human rights complaint brought by eight researchers who said the Canada Research Chair program discriminated against individuals from minority groups.
The program’s aim for researchers to represent the diversity of Canada’s population is good, Shariff told the committee. Diversity can help build public trust, he says.
But the policy is not being implemented well, he said, noting “able-bodied white men” were having a hard time getting positions.
“[B]y explicitly excluding a body of scholars, this restrictive policy creates an unnecessary conflict [between research and promoting diversity].”
Shariff told the committee that a research position at the University of British Columbia remains vacant because the school could not find a scholar with the required expertise who also fulfilled the diversity requirement.
This damages Canada’s academic reputation at a time when Canada could attract American researchers who are facing funding cuts, he says.
“Canada unfortunately has a reputation for having a somewhat politicized academy,” he said.
‘A huge asset’
Pinker also expressed concern about how politicalization can cause people to reject scientific research.
“Perceived ideological contamination” of scientific research is the main reason why people disregard scientific findings, he said.
“If science is seen as a left-wing activity, people on the [political] right will blow it off,” he said.
Pinker refused to blame any political party for increased politicalization. Parties on both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of making scientific research political, he said when Conservative MP Vincent Neil Ho asked whether the Liberal Party was responsible for increased academic politicalization.
Others said considering the diversity characteristics of researchers in funding decisions is not always a sign of politicalization.
“I think we see this polarization that assumes there is a ‘woke’ community on one side and others who are feeling left out on the other side,” said Grace Karram, a professor of higher education at the University of Toronto. “And we really have to nuance that.”
Many racialized researchers are not part of the “woke” group, she said.
Canadian researchers often collaborate less on research with their international counterparts than academics in other jurisdictions, Karram told the committee. Funding the work of researchers from racialized backgrounds can help correct this. It can also help recent immigrants to Canada enter the workforce.
“We cannot throw out [diversity, equity and inclusion] in this myth that we are not choosing the best research,” she said. “[There are] groups of recent Canadians that are highly educated and need to get into our labour market,” she said.
“Those people are a huge asset in the Canadian workforce market, and we’re missing it.”
Still, she cautioned against “tokenism” when awarding research grants.
Regardless of diversity quotas, witnesses told the committee there is little transparency about how research grants are currently awarded.
“In order to improve the system, we need to know how the system is working,” said Kelly Cobey, a scientist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, whose research focuses on how research is evaluated.
After the committee finishes its study, it will present a report with recommendations to the government, which will then decide whether to accept or reject them.
Science posts should be done like the orchestras by making the person applying invisible to the people hireing. That is how they got women into the orchestras. That way you get the most qualified while avoiding unconcious biases.