Politicization of science in Canada: what’s happening and what can we do about it?

Attacks on science and on equity, diversity and inclusion are gaining traction worldwide, and Canada is no exception. On October 1, 2025, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research voted unanimously in favor of a motion to examine how criteria used to award federal funding impact research excellence in Canada [1]. The criteria in question are Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI). 

The Committee initially requested disaggregated application and review data from the three granting agencies, raising serious concerns about confidentiality and showing a clear intention to politicize science [2]. Following strong mobilization from the scientific community – including thousands of signatures to an open letter and hundreds of messages sent to MPs – the Committee has since amended the motion to request aggregated and anonymized data [3]. While this reduces the immediate risk of individual-level breaches, the framing of EDI as a threat to research excellence remains deeply troubling.

What we are witnessing worldwide is a coordinated attack on science, research, and EDI efforts – one that ultimately threatens democracy and population health. When science is under attack, it’s not just researchers who suffer; it’s everyone who depends on health care, facts, and scientific progress for better lives. Defending EDI is not about ideology, and rather is related to upholding the principles of fairness, transparency, and rigor that underpin credible research. Canadian health researchers must take a stand, not just to defend academic freedom, but to fulfill their societal obligation to serve the public good.  

In the U.S., by slashing funding, invoking censorship, undermining journalism, and attacking academic institutions, the Trump administration is playing with the lives of millions to further their political agendas [4]. Already, the costs on population health have been immense.

From COVID-19 to measles outbreaks this year, thousands have died from preventable causes as a consequence of the growing anti-vaccine movement being backed by policy [5]. The American government’s targeted attacks on abortion have led to pregnant people being denied potentially life-saving medical treatments [6]. Climate change denial, like the withdrawal from international climate commitments, will likely place the population at growing risk – from worsening air quality to increasingly frequent and devastating natural disasters [7].

The repercussions of this institutionalized assault on science need to be seen as the global public health crises that they are.   

With the way things are evolving in Canada, we would be naïve to regard this wave of anti-science as a uniquely U.S. phenomenon. Similar movements are gaining ground here as well, bringing with them anti-vaccination rhetoric, prejudice against marginalized populations, and attempts at educational censorship [8]. One of the campaign promises made by Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre last spring was to “put an end to the imposition of woke ideology in the federal civil service and in the allocation of federal funds for university research” [9]. Though Poilievre lost the election, the current Standing Committee on Science and Research could be seen to advance this vision [10]. This is a stark reminder that a society that values science, justice, and healthcare is not a given anywhere.  

In this critical moment, Canadian academics cannot afford to remain apolitical or disconnected, nor can we allow for this to be dealt with in the usual bureaucratic ways. As academics ourselves, we are no strangers to slow processes and administrative burdens that draw attention away from issues beyond official duties. However, these very forces are partly responsible for the traction gained by the current anti-science movement, and simultaneously detrimental to a future that values science, justice, and truth. To defend these fundamental values, disengagement is not an option.

The assault on universities and science in the U.S., now growing in Canada, would not have been possible if the public wasn’t already disillusioned with these institutions [11]. Public trust in science and academia hasn’t wavered only because of large, influential actors on the political stage. These narratives gain power only when the public is willing to hear them. Why should they defend academia when they no longer see themselves reflected in science or in the systems that govern it?

The way forward

The assault on science and health care is multifaceted, complex, and powerful. Our response must match this complexity. It requires coordination across sectors and disciplines, and a fundamental reconceptualization of how we operate. Rallying across fields, embracing unconventional communication methods, and allying with grassroots movements are just a few ways in which researchers can defend science in bold and unexpected ways. 

Across the board, we must assert that universities, science, and research exist to improve lives. If people do not understand what we do or how it benefits them, they have no reason to defend us or to elect leaders who value our work. Rebuilding this connection with the public demands sustained engagement organized around four central objectives.

1. We must reach the public where they are

Science must step out of the ivory tower, and into daily life. Researchers can no longer treat communication as a checkbox task or an afterthought. Occasional press releases or academic blogs are not enough to demonstrate why the public should care about our work. What’s needed is sustained, creative, and bold outreach that spans sectors and platforms by bringing science into classrooms, social media feeds, and everyday conversations. 

For instance, the scientific process and its role in driving progress across health, technology, and society should be a foundational part of education. If we want people to value science, we must communicate how it tangibly improves their lives, meeting them where they are.

2. We must bring the public into our work

For the public to care about our findings, they must be involved in determining research priorities. For too long, the people our research is meant to benefit have been treated as passive recipients of knowledge rather than active partners in shaping it. True engagement means designing research with patients, not just about them; partnering with communities, not studying them from afar. 

When diverse voices inform what we study and how we study it, our science becomes more relevant, trustworthy, and impactful. People defend what they recognize as their own. When communities see themselves reflected in research – when they see their languages, health concerns, and lived experiences represented – they have a reason to believe in it and to stand up for it. 

3. We must reform the research system itself

If research is to reflect the public’s priorities, we must fundamentally restructure academia. The current scientific ecosystem rewards competition over collaboration, prestige over purpose, and metrics over meaning. These incentives distort what matters: real-world impact, inclusion, and collective progress. Publication counts, impact factors, and institutional rankings say little about the societal value of our work. 

Universities and researchers should be entirely focused on advancing knowledge that benefits people. Competition and gatekeeping slow discovery, sacrifice quality, and erode solidarity. To protect science from political manipulation, we need a culture that values collaboration, transparency, and shared accountability.

4. We must come together

We must no longer confuse neutrality with virtue. As health practitioners and researchers, our role demands nonpartisanship, but it also demands advocacy. We must defend health care, science, and truth itself to protect the patients and populations we serve. We cannot afford to remain silent and watch political tides undermine decades of progress, endangering millions along the way. 

With moments of disruption comes the opportunity for change. This is our moment to reimagine academia not as a distant ivory tower, but as a vital force for democracy, justice, and vibrant public life. To reimagine the health profession not as one of detached diagnosis, but one that centers patient experience and equity. 

If we fail to act, more than just institutional credibility is at stake. Academic freedom, science, and research are pillars that uphold a society rooted in justice, democracy, and freedom, which is a society worth defending for us all. 

References 

1. Standing Committee on Science and Research (45-1). Minutes of Meeting No. 6, October 1, 2025 [Internet]. House of Commons of Canada [cited 2025 Nov 6]. Available from: https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/SRSR/meeting-6/minutes
2. Picard A. How much are MPs entitled to know about research grants? Not as much as they think. The Globe and Mail [Internet]. 2025 Nov 4 [cited 2025 Nov 6]; Available from: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-science-research-grants-mp-parliament-committee-dei/
3. Standing Committee on Science and Research (45-1). Minutes of Meeting No. 14, November 5, 2025 [Internet]. House of Commons of Canada [cited 2025 Nov 6]. Available from: https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/SRSR/meeting-14/minutes
4. Evidence For Democracy. Trump’s War on Science: How His Policies Affect Canadian Research [Internet]. Evidence For Democracy [cited 2025 Nov 6]. Available from: https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/trumps-war-on-science-how-his-policies-affect-canadian-research/
5. Zadrozny B. Anti-vaccine movement falsely blames measles shots for Texas outbreak [Internet]. NBC News. 2025 [cited 2025 Nov 6]. Available from: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/texas-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccine-advocates-blame-shot-rcna193478
6. Ziegler M. In States with Abortion Bans, When Does a Medical Emergency Trigger an Exception? | State Court Report [Internet]. State Court Report; 2025 [cited 2025 Nov 6]. Available from: https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/states-abortion-bans-when-does-medical-emergency-trigger-exception
7. Poynting M, Stallard E. What is the Paris climate agreement and why does 1.5C matter? [Internet]. BBC; 2025 [cited 2025 Nov 6]. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93d59d4zy1o
8. Woods M. The Battle Brewing in Alberta Schools Is Much Bigger than Book Bans | The Walrus [Internet]. The Walrus; 2025 [cited 2025 Nov 6]. Available from: https://thewalrus.ca/the-battle-brewing-in-alberta-schools-is-much-bigger-than-book-bans/
9. Winstanley C, Galea L. By Attacking Science, Poilievre Takes a Page from Trump’s Playbook [Internet]. The Tyee; 2025. [cited 2025 Nov 6]. Available from: https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2025/04/10/Attacking-Science-Poilievre-Trump-Playbook/
10. Standing Committee on Science and Research (45-1). Evidence of Meeting No. 6, October 1, 2025 [Internet]. House of Commons of Canada [cited 2025 Nov 6]. Available from: https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/SRSR/meeting-6/evidence
11. Weber B. Canadians’ trust in science falling, poll suggests [Internet]. CBC News; 2019 Sept 23 [cited 2025 Nov 6]; Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-survey-1.5291291