Ottawa Heart Institute researcher awarded prestigious prize for standing up for science

News Room
By News Room 8 Min Read

Kelly Cobey of the uOttawa Heart Institute was recognized for her role in promoting open science as well as changes to research evaluation.

Get the latest from Elizabeth Payne straight to your inbox

Dr. Kelly Cobey is the first to admit that her work doesn’t always make her popular with her peers.

Cobey, a scientist who is director of the Metaresearch and Open Science Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute is an advocate for open science. Her work sometimes involves auditing and shining a spotlight on research that has failed to follow federal policies requiring openness and transparency. She is also instrumental in driving discussions about changing in the way research and researchers are valued and rewarded — with a renewed focus on quality instead of quantity.

Her work on open science and, especially, her push for an end to the “publish or perish” ethos for researchers can result in awkward conversations with colleagues, she said.
“You can imagine that I don’t make a lot of friends,” said Cobey.

That, in part, is why she has been awarded the prestigious John Maddox Prize early career award for standing up for science. Cobey, 37, received the award during a ceremony in London, England this week.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the American immunologist and physician who served as chief medical adviser to the president early in the COVID-19 pandemic, and who was often verbally attacked while in that role, won the award for lifetime achievement in 2020.

Another past recipient is Nancy Olivieri, a senior scientist at Toronto General Hospital. She received the award in 2023 for her communication of the importance of being open with patients about medical research which, according to the prize committee “followed her own determination to act with integrity in raising concerns from trials on the experimental drug deferiprone for the blood condition thalassaemia, in the face of extreme pressure from the company producing it, ultimately at great personal cost.

“In 1996, Nancy Olivieri was working at the SickKids Hospital in Toronto, acting as lead investigator in a clinical trial of deferiprone, when she began to suspect the drug was causing serious adverse events. Apotex, the drug manufacturer and a funder of the trial, disagreed. When Olivieri indicated that she intended to inform participants of her concerns, Apotex terminated the trials and invoked a confidentiality agreement in the research contract and threatened legal action if she made the findings public. Undeterred, Nancy shared her results at a scientific meeting and submitted them for publication,” according to the committee.

The John Maddox Prize recognizes researchers who stand up and speak out for science and evidence-based policy, “advancing public discussion around difficult topics, despite challenges or hostility, and successfully making a change in public discourse or policy. The prize shines a spotlight on the efforts of researchers all over the world who inspire and encourage others to do the same,” according to a statement from the Heart Institute.

Cobey said she is “incredibly honoured” to receive the award.

“This award acknowledges the current and past efforts my team has made to help promote research that is transparently designed, conducted, and reported. This acknowledgment encourages us to keep working to drive improvements in the research ecosystem in Canada and beyond.”

In an interview, she admitted that she initially said no when she was told uOttawa wanted to nominate her for the award.

“I thought it was a waste of time, such accomplished people have won it.” University officials persisted saying they thought it was a good fit.

Cobey said the work around rethinking the way academic research is assessed is potentially controversial because it could change the way things have traditionally been done, affecting those who have been rewarded by the system.

She said the pressure to publish can create incentives that don’t always align with other goals, such as patient engagement in research and open science. Measuring impact rather than quantity of research is something that needs to be explored, she said.

Share This Article
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *