When a Parliamentary Committee Recently Politicized EDI in Research, They Put Canadian Science and Patient Care at Risk

 

By Dr. Rachel Reeve

The recent House of Commons committee motion seeking access to decades of individual-level data from federal health and science grant applicants should concern anyone serious about evidence-based policymaking.

While the motion was ultimately amended, the committee’s original motion revealed a deeper and more troubling trend: equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in research being treated not as a pillar of excellence, but as a political liability.

As many others have observed, the original request went well beyond legitimate oversight. It sought the release of names, demographic information, scientific review scores and reviewer comments – material long protected by privacy and ethical norms.

These safeguards exist for good reason: scientific review depends on confidentiality, trust and voluntary participation. Undermine those foundations and the entire system weakens.

The response from the research community was swift and unprecedented. More than 5,000 researchers signed an open letter warning the motion was unethical and would erode confidence in Canada’s research ecosystem. The authors of the letter said, “this motion is incredibly damaging, unscientific in its approach, unethical and puts minoritized researchers and graduate students at risk.”

This was not institutional defensiveness. It was a warning about systemic risk. If researchers believe personal data can be retroactively exposed or politicized, participation drops, disclosure becomes less honest, and the quality of funded science deteriorates.

The committee’s decision to revise its motion, replacing demands for disaggregated data with aggregated and anonymized information, was necessary, but it does not fully resolve the issue.

This attempt to turn-back the clock is especially concerning as we’ve only just started seeing real progress in the field of research and medicine when it comes to underserved populations.

For years, researcher teams lacked diversity and relied on narrow study populations, producing guidelines and treatments that did not work equally well for everyone. Diabetes disproportionately affects communities that have been historically underrepresented in medical research – Indigenous peoples, Black Canadians, newcomers, low-income workers and rural populations. These are communities for whom diagnostic delays, gaps in clinical care and social barriers to diabetes management are not abstract policy problems but daily realities.

Though we’ve made significant progress in addressing these gaps over the last decade, Canadian diabetes research still does not adequately reflect these populations in its study cohorts or in its research leadership. The result is predictable: blind spots in evidence, treatments and technologies that do not serve everyone equally, and policy recommendations that are misaligned with real-world needs.

For people living with diabetes, high-quality, inclusive research matters regardless of political beliefs or voting preferences.

Research that reflects Canada’s real population leads to better prevention strategies, safer therapies and more effective health system planning. Weakening EDI frameworks risks taking us backward, towards evidence that is less representative and less useful.

EDI priorities enable policymakers to identify inequities in access, outcomes and service delivery and to design interventions that work for the people who need them most. Undermining the infrastructure that produces this evidence would make policy less precise, less effective and more costly over time.

EDI does not compete with research excellence. It strengthens it.

Diverse research teams ask better questions. They see patterns that homogeneous teams miss. They design studies that are more rigorous because they account for lived experience and structural inequities. They generate findings that are more widely applicable because they test ideas across populations and in real world settings, not merely within the easiest or most accessible ones.

When it comes to diabetes, a disease with outcomes shaped profoundly by social determinants of health, these differences are not minor. They determine whether research improves care or inadvertently perpetuates inequality.

If Canada is serious about reversing the rise in diabetes prevalence and closing persistent gaps in outcomes, then the path forward requires strengthening, not weakening, the role of EDI in research and funding.

Canada stands at a crossroads. We can allow reactive politics to reshape research norms, undermining trust and discouraging the very people whose insights we most need. Or we can reaffirm the principles that make Canadian health research a global leader: integrity, inclusiveness, scientific excellence and partnership with the communities most affected.

Strengthening EDI is not a distraction from research excellence. It is the path to it.

***

About Dr. Rachel Reeve

Dr. Rachel Reeve is the Executive Director of Research and Science at Diabetes Canada.

—

This post was previously published on Quoimedia.com and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.