On September 24, 2025, an expert provided testimony to the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Science and Research. The focus was on how federal funding criteria impact research excellence in Canada. The expert emphasized the importance of meritocracy in evaluating research, stating, "Meritocracy is the sole operative ethos when judging research excellence."

The expert argued that the primary aim of scientific research is to enhance understanding of the world, not to promote diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) in funding decisions. They criticized the integration of DIE principles in research funding, claiming it undermines individual dignity and research quality. A report from the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy in 2025 indicated that 97.5% of academic job postings at Canadian universities included DIE requirements.

Three specific examples were highlighted. First, the University of Waterloo’s Cheriton School of Computer Science advertised two NSERC Tier 1 Canada Research Chair positions. The first position was open only to individuals who self-identify as women, transgender, gender-fluid, non-binary, or Two-Spirit. The second position was restricted to those who identify as members of a racialized minority.

Second, the University of British Columbia sought a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Oral Cancer Research, limiting selection to individuals from federally designated groups, including people with disabilities, Indigenous people, and women.

Third, researchers at Concordia University received a grant for a project titled "Decolonizing Light," which aims to incorporate Indigenous knowledge into scientific practices. This initiative aligns with Concordia's strategic plan to decolonize its curriculum.

The expert also discussed the influence of similar ideologies in Canadian medicine. They referenced the Anti-Racism Expert Working Group of CanMEDS, which is revising training codes for physicians. The group suggested that future training should prioritize values like anti-oppression and social justice over medical expertise.

The expert concluded by quoting from their book, stating, "(S)cience is, or should be, an apolitical process. Scientific truths and natural laws exist independent of researchers’ identities." They argued that the identity of a researcher should not affect the fundamental principles of science, such as the distribution of prime numbers or the periodic table of elements.

The testimony raised significant questions about the role of ideology in scientific research and the implications for research excellence in Canada. After all expert witnesses had presented, the committee chair opened the floor for questions from members of the committee.