In a global context marked by political, economic, and scientific upheavals, researchers and academic institutions must constantly adapt. To explore these challenges, Stéphanie Doyle sat down with Dominique Bérubé, Vice-Principal of Research and Innovation at McGill University. Together, they discuss the impact of U.S. decisions on research, the challenges of misinformation and inequality, as well as the personal and professional lessons of a committed woman in science.
Stéphanie Doyle: Since Donald Trump took office, several decisions have affected the world of science and research. Recently, the Trump administration cut 500 million dollars in funding for messenger RNA vaccine research. What impact does this context have on an institution like McGill?
Dominique Bérubé: For now, the impact is mainly psychological for researchers, who sometimes feel that the very nature of their work is being questioned.
Developing a specialty takes time, and when political signals suggest that a field is less of a priority, it creates insecurity.
That said, McGill’s direct exposure to U.S. funding remains low (about 2%). Researchers with closer ties to the U.S. are the most affected.
The cuts first targeted overall funding, then international aid. Today, it’s the fund transfer process that has changed: U.S. universities can no longer transfer funds directly to their Canadian partners. However, the NIH (National Institutes of Health) plans to set up, by fall, a new mechanism to transfer funds directly and receive financial reports.
That said, the current cuts to RNA research will have a massive effect on the direction of research in this field, and it’s difficult to predict the impact here in Canada.
S.D.: So, they eliminated the intermediary, but didn’t shut the door.
D.B.: Exactly. No one in the United States has said they would no longer fund research in Canada. In fact, Canadian researchers are privileged to have access to these funds. It’s not as if our own funding is flowing south; it’s marginal. However, the U.S. greatly benefits from the valorization of our research: our students and discoveries are often recognized there. They therefore have every interest in keeping the Canadian ecosystem strong.
S.D.: And how does this compare with Europe?
D.B.: It all depends on the angle. The United States remains the leader in research investment, although China is catching up, even if the figures are hard to validate. The big difference is that American industry alone funds nearly 85% of research. Current budget cuts, in that context, are absorbed by this private support.
In Canada, a similar cut would have much more serious consequences, since industry invests very little in research and development. In the U.S., an RNA researcher who loses NIH funding could be recruited by the pharmaceutical industry (assuming investments there are not also frozen).
S.D.: So, the skills don’t really get lost.
D.B.: No, not yet. It’s not as dramatic as one might think. What’s more concerning is the rise of an anti-science discourse. We’re in an era of misinformation, of eroding trust in institutions—scientific, academic—in a climate of growing polarization.
S.D.: How did we get here?
D.B.: I think it stems from a profound social imbalance. Inequalities, the relentless pursuit of growth, the exploitation of resources… all of this has contributed to climate change and social tensions. Some people no longer have access to education or a decent life, and they reject the system. In this context, misinformation becomes a powerful tool to fuel resentment.
S.D.: You’ve been in your role at McGill for just over a year. What have been your greatest revelations or learnings?
D.B.: They are mostly personal revelations. You need to recognize the right moment to change roles. It happened that I applied for positions too early, before I was ready. When this opportunity came up, everyone told me, “This role is made for you.” And it was true.
But you also need to reinvent yourself. As you evolve and take on greater responsibility, you have to adopt a new stance and develop different strengths.
On the institutional side, every researcher I meet impresses me. And every university has its own culture. I like to see institutions fully assert their identity and strengths. McGill, for its part, has a very strong international reputation and a leading role in research. This creates a stimulating ecosystem, enriched by complementarities with other Quebec and Canadian universities.
S.D.: The pressure linked to leadership roles can be intense. Have you developed strategies to maintain your balance?
D.B.: I don’t compromise on my values. My family comes first. I have two children I love, and their presence guides my choices.
Sports are also part of my balance. It’s a discipline that helps me keep up the pace.
At work, I am demanding—with myself and with others—but always respectful. I don’t accept bad faith, but I accept that everyone has their limits. That’s what makes a team strong.
S.D.: Have you ever felt that this refusal to compromise could bother people?
D.B.: Yes. For example, I refused to pursue a professorship, because it would have required too many sacrifices. I couldn’t go abroad for a postdoc with two children in shared custody and an insufficient salary. So I chose another path, and I don’t regret it. It gave me a certain wisdom and a broader vision of the different career paths possible in research.
S.D.: What challenges mobilize you the most today?
D.B.: Professionally, I’ve always wanted to be an agent of change. Whatever the scale, the idea is to contribute and make a difference. I really enjoyed my years at the federal government, because I had a concrete influence on the entire Canadian ecosystem, particularly on equity issues.
Unfortunately, there is now a palpable resistance to these questions. Some people feel we’re doing too much, especially in terms of administrative accountability. But fundamentally, I am convinced we can never do enough to reduce inequalities.
My role at McGill allows me to continue to have an impact because it’s an influential institution, one that opens doors and actively participates in public debates. Recently, during a government consultation on the valorization of public research, McGill produced a solid and rigorous brief. My challenge today is to ensure that researchers’ work has a concrete impact in Quebec and in Canada.