Researchers whose mission is the advancement of knowledge find themselves increasingly hampered in their work by constraints that encroach on academic freedom, on the autonomy of universities and, ultimately, on science itself. .
At a conference titled The new constraints of university research presented at the last Acfas Congress, the historian and sociologist of science Yves Gingras, from UQAM, drew attention to one of these constraints, which is gaining more and more importance and which represents a real threat to science: the “moralization of science”.
“We are seeing more and more peer-reviewed scientific papers being retracted not because their results aren’t valid, but because they don’t appeal to certain communities or pressure groups. pointed out Mr. Gingras, who is also the scientific director of the Observatoire des sciences et technologies.
In Quantitative Science Studies (QSS), this researcher describes the case of an article published in NatureCommunications which concluded that female students who were supervised in their higher education by a woman and who continued in research had a scientific impact, according to a bibliometric study of the articles they had published, less than those who had been supervised by a professor of sex male. In addition, supervisors also benefited from a lower scientific impact if their students were women rather than men.
“This result was obvious, it is a known sociological phenomenon, but the journal retracted the article under pressure from groups who cried foul claiming it was a criticism of women, when it is not absolutely not the case. All in the name of fairness and inclusion, when it has no relation. All the EDI talk [Équité, diversité, inclusion] generates confusion between the validity of a result and its moral use. The conclusion of the article shows that there is inequality. It’s a shame, but that’s no reason to withdraw it. Usually, an article is retracted because the results are skewed due to erroneous data, which has been manipulated or plagiarized, etc. But today, we retract it for moral reasons, ”explains the sociologist.
The latter points out that this moralization of science violates the Law on academic freedom in the university environment, which was adopted on June 3, 2022 and which defines academic freedom as “the right of every person to exercise freely and without coercion doctrinal, ideological or moral, such as institutional censorship, an activity by which it contributes to the accomplishment of the institution’s mission”. Which mission is described as “the production and transmission of knowledge through research, creation and teaching activities, and through services to the community”.
“This freedom cannot be constrained by any doctrine, ideology or morality. And this, even in the name of ideologies that we can find convincing,” says Mr. Gingras.
University rankings also pervert the mission of universities, he adds. “Universities and business schools, like HEC, will do everything to improve their rankings [dans l’espoir d’attirer plus d’étudiants]. This is why business schools are starting to teach in English, for example, because it is a ranking criterion. »
Moreover, in their research policy, the three granting councils, CIHR, SSHRC and NSERC, impose, in the name of ethics, major constraints that limit academic freedom. In particular, they indicate that “appropriation of collective knowledge may offend communities” and that “researchers will provide community representatives who participate in the collaborative project with the opportunity to participate in the interpretation of the data and the ‘review of research findings prior to completion of final report’.
“If, according to the principle of symmetry, we replaced the word “community” by “Monsanto”, no one would agree to submit their paper [qui rapporte les résultats de la recherche] to Monsanto prior to publication. We agree that this limits academic freedom! remarks the sociologist.
The Tri-Council policy also warns that “researchers who undertake research projects that involve a critical [en sciences humaines] adopt appropriate measures to respect cultural norms, protect the safety of participants, and minimize potential harm to the well-being of the community as a whole”. So archaeological research that finds things that contradict a community’s cultural beliefs can’t be published because it might offend that community, he says.
“We can adapt to cultural constraints, but not if they curb academic freedom”, affirms Yves Gingras, who quotes the philosopher Ernest Renan who, in 1848, wrote this in The future of science : ” Criticism [voulant dire la science] does not know respect. For her, there is neither prestige nor mystery, she breaks all charms, she disturbs all veils. This irreverent power bearing a firm and scrutinizing eye on everything is, by its very essence, guilty of lèse-majesté, divine and human. »
If, according to the principle of symmetry, we replaced the word “community” by “Monsanto”, no one would agree to submit their paper [qui rapporte les résultats de la recherche] to Monsanto prior to publication. We agree that this limits academic freedom!
Another constraint is the tensions of recent years between Canada and China, as well as with Russia. Canadian researchers in artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology and quantum science who collaborate with scientists from these regions must now demonstrate, by many documents to complete, that their counterparts are white as snow, for reasons of national security, fact -we argue.
In addition to these new constraints, there is also the one that has been raging for a good twenty years now: partnerships between universities and businesses. These partnerships lead to interference in research projects as well as in the results of that research which violates the academic freedom that should take place in academic institutions. And yet, we applaud these lucrative partnerships, laments Yves Gingras.
The latter gives as an example those of a professor from McGill University in computer science who is simultaneously pursuing research in artificial intelligence for Meta (formerly Facebook), researchers from the University of Montreal and members of Mila (Institut québécois d’ IA) who conduct research supported by Google, Microsoft or other large digital companies.
One of the pioneers of AI research, British-Canadian researcher Geoffrey Hinton, who is a professor of computer science at the University of Toronto, resigned last May from Google, to which he devoted a third of his time since 2013, to be able to freely discuss the dangers of AI, recalls Mr. Gingras.
It also tells the story of Canadian researcher Nancy Fern Olivieri who, while testing a drug produced by the company Apotex at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, realized that it carried risks. When she published the results of her study, Apotex fired her and sued her. “And the University of Toronto did not come to its defense and instead supported the company, ignoring academic freedom,” says Mr. Gingras.
“Then scientists complain that people have less confidence in research and science…” he says.