Demilitarize McGill

Demilitarize McGill gets a furlough

demilitarizemcgill — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:32:57 +0000

By Peggy Curran, published 2010/02/09 in University City (Montreal Gazette)

The campaign to Demilitarize McGill will live to fight another day.

Or at least another month.

McGill is citing a procedural glitch for postponing a vote at Wednesday’s Senate meeting on a controversial rewrite of the university’s ethics guidelines for research.

While the plan to change wording Regulation on the Conduct of Research may come up for general discussion, officials say it won’t be put to a vote until at least the next meeting of the university’s governing body next month.

Nikki Bozinoff, a recent McGill graduate and spear-carrier for Demilitarize McGill , says her people won’t be taking any chances and will show up, just in case senators opt to overlook the technicalities and go ahead with the vote.

On Tuesday, she sent an open letter to McGill’s senators which outlines the group’s perspective on what’s at stake.

Here are the pertinent bits.

“While Demilitarize McGill does feel that military research merits increased scrutiny – it is, after all, one of the only institutions in our society explicitly intended to be harmful to human life – for the purpose of this policy, we are interested in an ethical review process for, or at the very least transparent reporting on, any research with directly harmful applications.

“Demilitarize will be the first to point out that McGill’s policy on military-sponsored research had a number of flaws, including the fact that it only applied to researchers receiving direct support from military agencies. If this were the administration’s main concern, however, we would expect that they work with interested stake-holders to strengthen these sections, rather than remove them completely.

“It appears, however, that the administration’s main concern lies in remaining attractive to potential investors and competitive with respect to other research-intensive universities. Demilitarize recognizes that McGill’s chronic underfunding is a serious problem, but we demand that the University not cash in our ethics for research dollars.

“It is important to highlight that McGill’s policy on research receiving military support, while not perfect, is unique in Canada, and came about due to sustained student opposition to weapons-related research, including a six-day sit-in in administrators’ offices in 1987. In an editorial on the topic, the McGill Daily editors were right in pointing out the irony of policies that prohibit McGill students from travelling to areas deemed dangerous, yet allow research contributing to this very political instability. To say the least, McGill’s proposed policy is short-sighted…

“It is unsurprising that McGill administrators are weary of a policy that could place restrictions on academic freedom, just as they must have been prior to the widespread adoption of policies requiring ethical review of research involving human subjects. It won’t be easy, but given its policy precedents, McGill is well-placed to lead the movement for transparent reporting on and ethical evaluation of research with harmful applications. Either that, or we look back on this moment, shrug, and reason that we were acting “in-line with our sister institutions.”

You can read the proposed policy for yourself here.

This is what the language in the existing policy says.

Research policy still in flux

demilitarizemcgill — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:29:49 +0000

New policy is too vague on ethics, according to student representatives

By Stephanie Law
Published: Feb 11 in The McGill Daily

The absence of restrictions on potentially harmful research in the new Regulations on Conduct of Research policy continued to raise concerns in Senate on Wednesday.

The new policy was originally up for approval at Wednesday’s Senate meeting, but due to an administrative oversight, the policy was only briefly discussed. McGill Vice-Principal (Research and International Relations) Denis Thérien explained that the Academic Policy Committee must approve the policy before it is brought to Senate, which had not been done yet.

“I think it’s unfortunate because…the policy is ready to be adopted right now and every month that goes by without having a document like this is dangerous [and] is not good for the University. We need this to come in force as soon as possible,” Thérien said.

There was a general consensus among the administration and senators that the new policy adequately addresses some, but not all, of the problems that arose when the first draft was brought to Senate in November.

“The removal of the clause on anonymity as well as the addition of [the reference to] social responsibility into the preamble is definitely an improvement on the document that was previously brought up,” Rebecca Dooley, SSMU VP (University Affairs), said. “[The new policy does] address some of the concerns that were brought forward by students [at the last Senate].”

During Senate discussions on the policy, Sarah Woolf, SSMU Arts senator, pointed out that the new policy will be replacing the Policy on Research Ethics and the Regulations on Research Policy, and therefore should include more specifications on ethical standards.

“The policy does refer to a research ethics board. However, to the best of my knowledge, the board is generally concerned with the welfare to the immediate human or animal subjects, rather than the potential societal and ethical outcomes of research,” Woolf said. “Despite the extent of the articulation of ethics, the revised version of the policy does not provide guidance to what this ethical standard might be.”

Thérien and others on the team that is drafting the new policy did not address Woolf’s concerns.

Richard Janda, Faculty of Law senator and law professor, also believes the policy still needs to be strengthened in order to prevent potentially harmful applications of research conducted at McGill.

“Just as we have ethical review of research on human subjects…I think that we can ask those kinds of questions [for any research]. Particularly, I believe we should ask those kinds of questions when the sources of money that are being given for research are not peer-reviewed granting councils,” Janda said.

Prior to the Senate meeting, the new policy was reviewed and discussed at the Research Advisory Council (RAC), which was formerly the Research Policy Committee. The RAC is composed of representatives from all faculties, associate deans, representatives from Thérien’s office, and student representatives.

According to a post-doctoral representative in the RAC, who wished to remain anonymous, the RAC attempted to develop a clause to regulate research with potentially harmful applications. “There was an effort made by a number of committee members to come up with a better clause. But in the time we had, we couldn’t come up with better wording,” she said.

The post-doctoral representative was disappointed that they did not have sufficient time to discuss and develop an appropriate clause. She felt that the representatives from Thérien’s office had a strong influence in the discussion and had clearly set objectives.

Cleve Higgins, organizer with Demilitarize McGill, argued that in fact, having these regulations in place are in the interest of McGill and its administration.

“I think it is important for McGill to institutionally deal with this issue, and in that way there doesn’t need to be a campaign against the University or against the researcher every time the research is connected to harmful application,” said Higgins.

Bombs on Campus

demilitarizemcgill — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:29:21 +0000

BY PATRICK LEJTENYI
Published February 11, 2010 in The Montreal Mirror
Campus peaceniks at McGill are preparing for war. The casus belli: weapons research done by the university’s scientists that will now be unrestricted by a 23-year regulation designed to make such research transparent and open to public scrutiny.

The McGill Senate, comprised of faculty and student representatives, met this week on lifting the regulation, which the university says would place it on an equal footing with other research institutions in Canada and the U.S. Nikki Bozinoff, a 22-year-old organizer with Demilitarize McGill, was pessimistic. She says the recommendations by the student senators, who generally backed keeping the regulations in place, were “ignored” by the rest.

“If it passes, we will be back to square one,” she says. “There will be no transparency or regulations over research that is receiving military funding. The regulations have been in place since 1987.”

Among some of the weapons systems being researched at McGill are thermobaric explosives, better known as fuel-air explosives. Fuel-air explosives are considered more effective than traditional explosive fragmentary ordinance against bunkers, trenches and caves. See demilitarizemcgill.wordpress.com for more info.

McGill reconsiders restrictions on research tied to military

demilitarizemcgill — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:15:15 +0000

By Peggy Curran, Montreal Gazette – February 8, 2010

MONTREAL — Advances in medicine, behavioural psychology, pharmaceuticals, prosthetics. Computers, digital imaging, satellites in space and global positioning systems in cars. Poison gas, nuclear bombs, thermobaric weapons.

The world lives, and dies, by inventions spurred by military need, and funded by Defence Department budgets.

So should universities shun money from military sources, or welcome it? And if they court it, should there be strings attached — such as mandatory disclosure of the potentially harmful applications of military-funded research?

This week, McGill University’s senate will be asked to approve revamped research ethics guidelines which expunge a 22-year-old clause which required researchers accepting money from military sources to indicate whether the research would have “direct harmful consequences.”

McGill principal Heather Munroe-Blum and Denis Therien, vice-principal for research and international relations, said the move brings McGill in line with other research-intensive universities in Canada and the United States, most of which don’t have language or criteria which specifically targets money from military sources.

“It is the wrong equation to say that military funded equals harmful and non-military funded is OK,” Therien told the senate when the topic was discussed in November.

Munroe-Blum argued the existing policy “provided a false sense of reassurance on something that has to be, at the end of the day, (a matter of) good judgment and good process.”

But members of the student-led group, Demilitarize McGill, say McGill is trying to cloud the issues surrounding military — and particularly, weapons — research, by claiming the university is simply doing what everyone else does.

“You can use that argument to justify anything,” said Cleve Higgins, one of the group’s organizers. “But you shouldn’t let that influence you if you believe something is right.”

“We’re not really feeling very positive about what the result will be,” said Nikki Bozinoff, who graduated from McGill last spring. She believes that instead of following the pack, her alma mater should take the lead by demanding transparency to ensure research conducted there is a force for good — or at least, sets out to be.

McGill amended its research policy in 1988 after concerns arising from contracts awarded to McGill professors by the U.S. military to research fuel-air explosives.

“These sections related to military research are unique in Canada and came about as a result of a history of student activism,” said Higgins. “McGill research continues to contribute to the development of weapons for the U.S. and Canadian military forces. The policy to regulate this research needs to be strengthened, not removed.”

After student and faculty members challenged the proposed policy last fall, McGill tinkered with the language of the proposed policy. The revised version calls upon researchers “to balance the potential benefits against the possibility of harmful applications.”

A clause was dropped which would have allowed for anonymous funding of research, a measure one critic euphemistically described as “problematic.”

But Bozinoff and Higgins say no progress has been made on the key issue of “harmful” research, whether that money comes from military sources, Big Pharma or multinational corporations. “There is nothing in the policy that deals with harmfulness,” said Higgins.

He recognizes the risk of clamping down so hard that funding dries up for research that has broad applications for both military and peaceful purposes.

“Those are the tricky ethical questions,” he said. “It’s true that any research can potentially be damaging. Nothing is 100 per cent. That’s why we have focused on funding for research on explosives, where the application is pretty obviously harmful.”

Research policy still in flux

demilitarizemcgill — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:00:15 +0000

New policy is too vague on ethics, according to student representatives
By Stephanie Law

February 11, 2010, The McGill Daily

The absence of restrictions on potentially harmful research in the new Regulations on Conduct of Research policy continued to raise concerns in Senate on Wednesday.

There was a general consensus among the administration and senators that the new policy adequately addresses the problems that arose when the first draft was brought to Senate in November.

Thérien and others on the team that is drafting the new policy did not address Woolf’s concerns.

Richard Janda, Faculty of Law senator and law professor, also believes the policy still needs to be strengthened in order to prevent potentially harmful applications of research conducted at McGill.

Cleve Higgins, organizer with Demilitarize McGill, argued that in fact, having these regulations in place are in the interest of McGill and its administration.

Demilitarize McGill urges Senators to vote NO for proposed research policy

demilitarizemcgill — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:16:54 +0000

(Français plus bas)
Students and community members are distressed by changes proposed in the Regulation on the Conduct of Research – a policy statement that governs the conduct of all research taking place at McGill. The policy up for approval has been the subject of extensive criticism and involves the complete removal of a section requiring transparent reporting on research receiving military funding. A votefor approval of the policy will take place in Senate at approximately 15h00 on Wednesday February 10th in Leacock Building Room 232. Concerned students and community members will be in attendance.

The policy was last discussed in Senate on November 4th 2009 where a number of student Senators brought forward concerns.

“I think that we can agree that McGill should and does strive to be a leader among the G13,” said Arts Senator Sarah Woolf referring to the group of 13 research-intensive Universities in Canada. “To remove this clause I think is a regressive step and doesn’t demonstrate leadership at all. What it does suggest however is that we are trying to be as appealing to research funders …at the expense of our ethics. ”

In February 1988, McGill amended the Regulations on Research policy to include sections 10 and 11 dealing with the evaluation and approval of research projects funded by a military agency. This introduction of policy governing military research came in response to concerns about contracts with the US military for McGill professors to research fuel-air explosives as well as a six day occupation of the McGill administration’s offices in 1987.

Harmful research in conjunction with the Canadian and American military continues to take place at McGill and has been the subject of student action including a General Assembly motion passed last February that mandates the Students’ Society at McGill University (SSMU) to oppose McGill’s involvement in the development of thermobaric weapons, as well as a Post Graduate Students’ Society council motion that mandates the organization to advocate for “public transparency and ethical evaluation of all research at McGill funded by, or done in collaboration with, a military agency.”

Demilitarize McGill proposed amendments to the policy after the November 5 Senate discussion and met with Associate Provost William Foster in both the Fall of 2008 and at the beginning of the Winter 2009 semester to discuss the policy. Demilitarize McGill had originally hoped that the policy review would be an opportunity to address a number of flaws in the existing policy however members soon realized that those conducting the policy revamp intended to completely deregulate research receiving military funding at McGill. Demilitarize McGill’s efforts to engage the university in a serious discussion on the subject of ethical review of research receiving military funding have regrettably, fallen on deaf ears.

“These sections related to military research are unique in Canada and came about as a result of a history of student activism.” says Cleve Higgins, an organizer with Demilitarize McGill.
“McGill research continues to contribute to the development of weapons for the US and Canadian military forces. The policy to regulate this research needs to be strengthened, not removed.”

A copy of the Regulation on the Conduct of Research policy up or approval can be located here, while the current policy containing sections 10 and 11 referring to military research can be found in Annex C-2 here.

For more information: demilitarizemcgill@gmail.com

*******************
Recherche académique pour le développement d’armement:
l’Université McGill abandonne toute transparence en matière de recherche militaire

Étudiants et citoyens dénoncent la décision de l’administration de McGill de retirer la transparence de ses politiques institutionnelles d’encadrement de recherche. Les nombreux projets de recherche ayant des répercussions néfastes pour la société, tels que les projets à vocation militaire de développement d’explosifs et d’autres technologies de l’armement, vont se poursuivre alors que le public ne pourra plus en être informé.

Une mobilisation massive aura lieu lors de l’adoption formelle de la politique au Sénat de McGill, le mercredi 10 février à 15h à la salle 232 du pavillon Leacock. La nouvelle politique de recherche qui sera adoptée a déjà fait l’objet de vives critiques, puisqu’elle implique le retrait total de l’encadrement éthique et de la transparence des recherches financées par l’industrie militaire. Un grand nombre d’étudiants membres du Sénat de McGill ont exprimés leur opposition à son adoption :

« Nous pouvons nous entendre pour dire que McGill doit s’efforcer d’être un leader au sein du G-13 » a déclaré la sénatrice Sarah Woolf en faisant référence au regroupement des 13 universités canadiennes les plus actives en recherche. « Or, retirer cette clause est un pas dans la mauvaise direction et ne démontre aucun leadership. Au contraire, il s’agit plutôt d’une indication que nous nous efforçons d’être aussi attrayants que possibles envers d’éventuels bailleurs de fonds … aux dépends de notre éthique. »

En février 1988, McGill a amendé sa politique de recherche pour y inclure des articles encadrant les recherches financées par les agences militaires. Cette adoption s’est inscrit en réaction à la pression de la communauté académique contre les contrats de recherches accordés par l’armée américaine à des professeurs de McGill pour des recherches sur les explosifs air-carburant, ainsi qu’à une occupation de 6 jours des bureaux administratifs par des protestataires en 1987.

La recherche dévastatrice en collaboration avec l’armée canadienne et américaine se poursuit toujours à McGill et a été l’objet d’actions étudiantes, dont une résolution d’assemblée générale adoptée en février 2009 qui mandate l’Association étudiante de l’Université McGill de s’opposer à toute implication de l’institution dans le développement d’explosifs thermobariques (un type d’arme meurtrier présentement utilisé en Irak et en Afghanistan), ainsi qu’une résolution de l’Association des étudiants de 2e et 3e cycle qui préconise « l’encadrement éthique et la transparence envers le publique de toute recherche à McGill financée par, ou effectuée an collaboration avec, une agence militaire ».

Demilitarize McGill a mis de l’avant des amendements à la nouvelle politique de recherche et a rencontré le Doyen responsable de la recherche William Foster pour partager ses préoccupations. D’après le groupe, il s’agissait là d’une opportunité de régler de nombreuses failles dans la politique précédente, mais il est vite devenu évident que les gestionnaires à l’origine de ce changement avaient pour seule intention de dérèglementer entièrement la recherche financée par le secteur militaire à McGill. Les efforts déployés par Demilitarize McGill pour inciter l’administration à adopter des considérations éthiques sont restés sans réponse.

« Cette section de la politique en lien avec la recherche militaire est unique au Canada et est le résultat d’un militantisme étudiant actif. » affirme Cleve Higgins, un militant de Demilitarize McGill. « Alors que le complexe militaire canadien continue de croître, il est de la plus grande importance que cette politique soit renforcée, pas éradiquée ! ».

Une copie de la Politique de règlements sur la conduite de la recherche qui sera adoptée le 10 février est disponible en ligne, alors que la politique actuelle, renfermant les sections 10 et 11 portant sur la recherche militaire, est disponible dans l’annexe C-2 de ce document.

Renseignements: demilitarizemcgill@gmail.com
Voir la version en anglais pour les hyperliens vers les documents mentionnés.

Don’t sell our integrity

demilitarizemcgill — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:45:23 +0000

By Nikki Bozinoff
Published: 11/30/09

In a November 23 interview with The Daily, Principal Heather Munroe-Blum shrugged off the fact that her administration is determined to remove sections of McGill’s research policy that require transparent reporting on all research receiving military funding.

“We have so many protocols that govern the ethics of the research that we do, that this would take the onus off of us to review our own research proposals,” she said.

It may shock readers to find, however, that no framework currently exists for ethical review of the harmful applications of research – for example, weapons development associated with thermobaric research, which does not involve humans or animals.

Both Munroe-Blum and Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation) Denis Therien have obscured our request for reporting on harmful applications, through their contention that research receiving military funding should not be singled out.

“It is a wrong equation to say that military-funded is harmful and non-military funding is okay,” said Therien at the Senate meeting on November 4, in which the proposed policy was discussed.

While Demilitarize McGill does feel that military research merits increased scrutiny – it is, after all, one of the only institutions in our society explicitly intended to be harmful to human life – for the purpose of this policy, we are interested in an ethical review process for, or at the very least transparent reporting on, any research with directly harmful applications.

Demilitarize will be the first to point out that McGill’s policy on military-sponsored research had a number of flaws, including the fact that it only applied to researchers receiving direct support from military agencies. If this were the administration’s main concern, however, we would expect that they work with interested stake-holders to strengthen these sections, rather than remove them completely.

It appears, however, that the administration’s main concern lies in remaining attractive to potential investors and competitive with respect to other research-intensive universities. Demilitarize recognizes that McGill’s chronic underfunding is a serious problem, but we demand that the University not cash in our ethics for research dollars.

Our requests, while portrayed by the administration as unnecessarily bureaucratic, are actually in line with existing ethical review processes. We are asking that research with harmful applications be subject to the same sort of ethical review processes required of research involving humans or animals.

In our proposed amendment, we recognize that researchers can never be aware of all the possible applications of their research, and specify the more reasonable expectation that they must be aware of all potentially harmful applications by agencies that support the research. This expectation is based on a section in the policy preamble that states: “individual members of the University community are best positioned, through special knowledge, to be aware of…the consequences of [their research].” Demilitarize McGill is also opposed, for obvious reasons, to the insertion of a section which allows for directed, anonymous research sponsorship.

In her defense of military research at McGill, Munroe-Blum continues to emphasize research on more benign themes such as prosthetics and medicine, while willfully ignoring the numerous examples of military funding and collaboration for projects related to explosives in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Since 2002, professors from the Shock Wave Physics Group, including David Frost and Andrew Higgins, have received funding from the Canadian military, and have worked in collaboration with the U.S. military on these projects. There are multiple pieces of convincing evidence indicating that the research done by professors at McGill is contributing to the development of new thermobaric weapons for use in Afghanistan and Iraq. The principal and the rest of the McGill community have to stop ignoring this situation and confront its ethical implications, and a policy requiring the evaluation of research with potentially harmful applications is a necessary step in this direction.

It is important to highlight that McGill’s policy on research receiving military support, while not perfect, is unique in Canada, and came about due to sustained student opposition to weapons-related research, including a six-day sit-in in administrators’ offices in 1987. The Daily editors were right in pointing out the irony of a policy that prohibits McGill students from travelling to areas deemed dangerous, yet allows research contributing to this very political instability. McGill’s proposed policy is short-sighted, and research with harmful applications currently taking place on campus contributes to the perpetuation of global hierarchies of power and inequity.

It is interesting to note that the first iteration of a global framework on the ethics of human research – the Nuremberg code – did not come about until 1947 and was in response to the horrendously unethical research undertaken by the Nazis during World War II. In Canada, it wasn’t until the seventies that the Medical Research Council of Canada (currently known as CIHR) developed guidelines for research involving human subjects.

It is unsurprising that McGill administrators are weary of a policy that could place restrictions on academic freedom, just as they must have been prior to the widespread adoption of policies requiring ethical review of research involving human subjects. It is clear to members of Demilitarize McGill, however, that research with harmful applications, like weapons research, should not be conducted at publicly funded institutions.

Given its policy precedents, McGill is well-placed to lead the movement for transparent reporting on and ethical evaluation of research with harmful applications. Either that, or we look back on this moment, shrug, and reason that we were acting “in-line with our sister institutions.”

Nikki Bozinoff is a former Daily Science and Technology Editor. She received a 2009 QPIRG McGill Research Stipend to review research policies across Canada. She is currently a community member of Demilitarize McGill: demilitarizemcgill.wordpress.com

Opt-in Ethics? QPIRG-McGill and Demilitarize McGill Present Student Papers on Militarization and Research Ethics

demilitarizemcgill — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:02:37 +0000

Version française suivra: SVP faire circuler dans vos réseaux

Opt-in Ethics? QPIRG-McGill and Demilitarize McGill Present Student
Papers on Militarization and Research Ethics

Friday, November 27th
Shatner Building
3480 McTavish
Clubs Lounge, 4th Floor
5:15 PM

Cleve Higgins and Nikki Bozinoff will be presenting works they have
completed in the past year on military research at McGill and policies
for the regulation of this research:

–> From Bibliographies to Battlefields: Military Research at McGill
from 1967–2007
Cleve Higgins, Demilitarize McGill

–>Laissez-innover? Unpacking Research Policies in Canada
Nikki Bozinoff, QPIRG Research Stipend Recipient

L’éthique en option ? Le GRIP-McGill et Demilitarize McGill présentent
leurs investigations sur la Militarisation et l’éthique en recherche
universitaire.

Vendredi, le 27 novembre
Édifice Shatner
3480, McTavish (métro Peel)
Clubs Lounge, 4e étage
5:15 PM

Cleve Higgins et Nikki Bozinoff présenteront l’issue de leurs analyses
de la dernière année sur la recherche militaire à McGill et sur
l’encadrement de la recherche.

–> De la bibliographie au champs de bataille: La recherche militaire
à McGill de 1967 à 2007
Cleve Higgins, Demilitarize McGill

–>Laissez-innover? Démystifier l’encadrement de la racherche
académique au Canada
Nikki Bozinoff, auteure d’une recherche sur la question pour le GRIP-
McGill

Principal talks on military research and tuition

demilitarizemcgill — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:50:07 +0000

AUDIO OF THE PRINCIPAL ON MILITARY RESEARCH POLICY:

The Daily sits down with Heather Munroe-Blum to discuss campus issues

By Humera Jabir, published Nov 23 in the McGill Daily

In a week of engagement with the student body, Principal and Vice Chancellor Heather Munroe-Blum met with campus media to field questions on critical issues that impact the McGill community. The principal responded to questions on military research, tuition fees, and the future of McGill as a vehicle-free campus.

Early this month, the administration announced that it would lift regulations on military-related research. The Daily asked the principal to account for the change in policy, and to explain why regulations which were previously accepted would no longer be applied.

Munroe-Blum responded that the policy change would bring McGill in line with the practices of other research-intensive universities, the majority of which do not apply unique conditions to research funded by military-related bodies.

“The line on military research [does not] appear in [any] other research policy guidelines at the federal level, or with any of our peer universities,” said Munroe-Blum. “We have so many protocols that govern the ethics of the research that we do, that it would take the onus off of us to review our own research proposals thoroughly if we just defaulted to a line and a policy on who the sponsor of the research was. And secondly, it is inappropriate in our view, including mine, to say that the sponsor of the research is what dictates the usefulness of the research.”

According to the principal, the research restrictions’ impact on McGill’s ability to competitively secure investment in science and scholarship influenced the policy change. The countries that invest heavily in basic science under a defence-related framework have also been those that invest the most in the fundamental sciences, Munroe-Blum said. She cited the U.S. as “the best example of that.”

Munroe-Blum added that the policy on military research “has no good policy bearing and it provided a false sense of reassurance on something that has to be at the end of the day [a matter of] good judgment and good process.” She stated that while this may not satisfy students, she felt “much more comfortable” with the new policy than with the prior one.

The principal also commented on the University’s efforts to address underfunding. The University has already raised $500-million through the Campaign McGill fund-raising drive, while McGill’s MBA program switched to a self-funded model, increasing tuition to $29,500 – a jump of 1,663 per cent for Quebec residents. The Daily asked whether increasing tuition was part of the University’s long-term plan.

Munroe-Blum responded that the University needs stable and effective levels of public investment. “With respect to tuition my view is that we should not be aiming to have American tuition rates, [and] that we have a completely public university system,” said Munroe-Blum.

She added, however, that low tuition did not equate to a better system of education, and criticized the framework used to determine tuition levels and distribution in Quebec.

“Quebec has the lowest tuition fees in all of Canada…. We have the lowest degree completion rate, and the lowest participation rate in all of Canada, so it is not a success story,” said Munroe-Blum.

“If you come to McGill from outside Quebec and Canada…[your] fees just don’t come to McGill. Those fees go into a pool that funds the whole Quebec university system…so our students don’t get the benefit of the tuition fees they pay if they come from outside of Quebec. I think there is a principle of fairness that is unjustly applied there,” she added.

The principal also said that while she was proud to be leading a public university, she did not believe it was fair that those who could pay a fairer share of the costs pay such low fees, and advocated that Quebec tuition be raised to the Canadian average.

“If you are really lacking funds, you don’t need free tuition. You need a grant or a loan or some combination of things…because the only way you are going to get both accessibility and quality is by having enough revenues over all, and having a commitment to providing support for those who are qualified to come but don’t have the support to do it themselves,” said Munroe-Blum.

Munroe-Blum was also asked when McGill will realize its goal of becoming a car-free campus. While she declined to give an exact date, the principal stated that it was “a big desire” for the administration to carry out the plan, and hoped that the campus would be vehicle-free by the end of the year.

“We are going as fast as we can, and we are going faster than we thought we would be able to…. I would say a vehicle-free campus is not just about sustainability, but safety as well, and the culture, and sense of community,” said Munroe-Blum. “We seem to have stronger than ever engagement with the local government on it. We’ve got the bike path in, and these are all steps to getting there.”

La recherche se dérègle à McGill

demilitarizemcgill — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:12:25 +0000

L’administration de l’Université tente de modifier sa politique de réglementation de la recherche.

L’armée envahit-elle le campus de James McGill? Marie McCulloch / Le Délit

Alexandre Ruiz de Porras Guédon Le Délit

La question sur la recherche militaire a encore une fois fait débat lors de la réunion du Sénat de l’Université mercredi dernier. Dans la nouvelle politique qu’elle a présenté à l’instance décisionnelle qui regroupe administrateurs, étudiants, professeurs et employés, l’administration souhaite voir la suppression de la réglementation existante sur la recherche militaire et l’insertion d’une clause sur l’anonymat de la source de financement.

La polémique

Lorsqu’à l’automne dernier, William Foster, vice-président exécutif adjoint aux politiques et aux procédures, a publié une nouvelle ébauche de la politique de réglementation de la recherche, Demilitarize McGill a vivement réagi. Ce groupe étudiant qui s’oppose à la présence militaire en milieu académique et qui prône un renforcement de l’encadrement éthique dans la recherche s’est d’emblée montré très réticent.

Dans cette ébauche, les articles mentionnant l’encadrement de la recherche militaire étaient supprimés et une clause garantissant l’anonymat de l’entité qui finance la recherche a été ajoutée. Pour le moment, les professeurs doivent remplir une déclaration avant d’entamer leur recherche. Ils doivent aussi spécifier si oui ou non leur recherche est reliée au domaine militaire et doivent en mesurer les éventuels effets bénéfiques ou néfastes.

«On a fait une demande d’accès [aux formulaires] auprès du secrétariat général de McGill, mais on nous a répondu que dans leurs archives, il n’y a aucune trace de ces documents […] depuis 2002», a expliqué Alexandre Vidal, membre de Demilitarize McGill.

M. Vidal a qualifié cette attitude d’«atteinte à la démocratie. Il est très problématique que dans une institution publique comme McGill, on ne sache pas ce qui se passe, surtout quand ça inclut des recherches financées par l’armée, qui est une autre institution publique.» Il a également noté des «éléments gênant au niveau de l’encadrement éthique» dans l’ébauche de M. Foster.

Recherche et transparence

«La question est de savoir si la politique de transparence adoptée par McGill en 1988 a été constamment violée par l’administration», a lancé M. Vidal. Ce dernier a expliqué que toutes les suggestions proposées par Demilitarize McGill ont non seulement été écartées, mais que les sections de la politique qui concernaient ces suggestions ont aussi été retirées.

«Il doit y avoir beaucoup d’argent impliqué, c’est peut-être l’une des raisons, mais une des principales motivations pourrait bien être l’atteinte à la réputation de McGill [du moment où] on l’associerait, par exemple, au développement d’armes», a-t-il poursuivi.

Des recherches militaires ont lieu à McGill depuis le début de la Guerre froide. En mars 1987, des étudiants de McGill avaient occupé les locaux du vice-président à la recherche en réaction aux études menées par les professeurs Roman Knystautas et John H. Lee sur les armes thermobariques pour le compte du Département de la défense nationale des États-Unis. Après six jours, la police était parvenue à déloger les étudiants. Suite à cet événement, l’administration avait décidé d’adopter une politique de réglementation sur la recherche en février 1988. Elle y avait notamment apporté deux dispositions, les sections 10 et 11, qui encadrent la recherche liée au domaine militaire.

Embrouille entre les Sénateurs

Lors de la rencontre du Sénat de mercredi dernier, plusieurs sénateurs ont questionné l’administration sur la nouvelle ébauche. Denis Thérien, vice-président à la recherche de l’Université McGill, s’est expliqué en indiquant que l’institution s’aligne «par rapport à ce que d’autres universités font au Canada», précisant que les questions posées aux chercheurs «portent à confusion parce qu’elles ne demandent pas si la recherche est financée par l’armée, mais plutôt si elle a des applications militaires».

Pour Sarah Woolf, sénatrice de la Faculté des arts, il n’a pas suffi de prétexter un alignement avec le reste du G13, le groupe des universités canadiennes les plus performantes en matière de recherche, pour justifier la nouvelle ébauche. «McGill doit s’efforcer et s’efforce d’être un chef de file au sein du G13, a-t-elle affirmé, mais supprimer ces clauses reviendrait à faire un pas en arrière qui ne démontrerait en aucun cas un sens du leadership. Cela porterait à croire que McGill essaie d’être [un pôle de recherche] aussi attractif que les autres membres du G13, au détriment de notre éthique.»

M. Thérien s’en est défendu en soutenant que c’est «une mauvaise équation de dire que la recherche financée par le domaine militaire est mauvaise et que le contraire est bon», ajoutant qu’«il n’y a pas de raison de [garder] une étape bureaucratique supplémentaire».

La sénatrice Woolf a répliqué que c’est «justement parce qu’il n’y a pas de consensus sur la question de savoir si la recherche militaire est nuisible ou pas, [qu’il existe des] raisons pour garder cette démarche bureaucratique».

Le président de l’Association des étudiantes et étudiants de 2e et 3e cycles, Daniel Simeone, a jugé qu’«il y a une part fondamentale de responsabilité de la part du chercheur de signaler la source de financement pour un projet». Il a considéré que «si un donateur souhaite faire un don à titre anonyme, il pourrait le faire à travers la fondation McGill, qui à son tour redistribuerait ensuite le montant» au programme de recherche souhaité.

C’est la première fois que McGill tente de changer sa politique de réglementation de la recherche depuis 1991. Le Sénat se rencontrera à nouveau le 2 décembre prochain pour adopter le nouveau texte, avec ou sans modifications. À l’heure de mettre sous presse, M. Thérien était malheureusement indisponible pour répondre aux questions du Délit.