The landscape of health research is at a pivotal moment. Recent cuts and uncertainty have destabilized longstanding structures and practices in research institutions. However, these challenges also present an opportunity for our community to rethink how we approach research.
While creativity and blue-sky thinking long have been celebrated in scientific inquiry – indeed, decades of foundational research into mRNA technology, initiated without specific therapeutic targets, enabled the quick development of COVID-19 vaccines – we also must recalibrate efforts toward research that is not only innovative but also efficient and relevant. This is not to diminish the importance of exploratory studies, but rather to ensure that resources are thoughtfully directed toward addressing the most pressing challenges we face in health care.
Researcher John Ioannidis advocates for a research system that rewards high-quality, transparent and impactful science and emphasizes the importance of correcting errors and improving efficiency in research to better serve society.
His work addresses poor research study design, redundancy and misaligned research priorities. By identifying and addressing these challenges, Ioannidis argues the research community can focus on studies that are more directly relevant to improving patient care and influencing health policy. Addressing these issues will lead to more efficient use of resources, ultimately improving outcomes and accelerating advancements in treatment and care strategies.
The Cochrane Collaboration, known for its systematic reviews, has raised concerns about the duplication of research efforts and noted the importance of translating research findings into real-world applications. Cochrane emphasizes that research should not be an academic exercise – it must be applicable in clinical practice. It also highlights the need for continuous updating of evidence to ensure that health-care systems use the most current and relevant information.
Cochrane emphasizes that research should not be an academic exercise – it must be applicable in clinical practice.
In Canada, platforms like Healthy Debate are sparking important conversations about the current state of health research. Does the current peer review process always identify the most impactful studies? Should research funding should be more strategically directed to address urgent healthcare challenges? By reassessing research priorities, Canada has an opportunity to lead the charge in making research more focused, effective and aligned with the needs of patients and the health system.
By placing a stronger emphasis on studies that directly impact patient care, we can ensure that research resources are being used effectively and efficiently. At the same time, we must maintain support for innovative and creative research that explores new ideas and opens novel pathways for discovery. Finding the balance between creative inquiry and more structured, immediately relevant research is key to ensuring that health research has the greatest possible impact.
Health research must evolve to meet the challenges of the future. By reassessing priorities and focusing on impactful, high-value research, we can ensure that resources are used effectively to make a real difference in patient care.
The future of health research depends on a balanced approach – one that fosters innovation while staying rooted in the urgent challenges of today’s health-care systems.

Lyme disease (LD) is hyperendemic in parts of Canada but the problem of persistent LD has been ignored by PHAC who refuse to support basic research on the morbidity of the disease. Despite one’s point of view there is no question that patients are suffering but PHAC isn’t going to do anything because there is no agreed upon definition or test. Sick patients just want to be returned to health. PHAC has prioritized the preservation of the antibiotic supply over returning Canadians to health. The problem has been left with private foundations to deal with. In an open access 2024 article by Ogden/ Dumas gave us a multiplier of 13.7 to use on whatever numbers are presented. Since 2009 LD may have affected an estimated 273,768 Canadians. There is consensus that 10%-20% or more (55,754) may remain ill and suffer a declining quality of life and be forced to leave school or employment and go on social assistance at great cost. We know much more about how this bug operates and how to treat complex cases of disseminated LD. Shareholder values control medicine and shareholders aren’t interested in cures , vaccines or new antibiotics. The paradigm of modern medicine is to palliate with treatments that provide life-time annuities to the pharmaceutical industry. Now that the American Health Care system has become unglued will PHAC step up to the plate? It appears they prefer the status quo and will stick to their mandate of promoting healthy living and being health cheer leaders.