The number of anti-science decisions the federal government has made in recent years is staggering: axing the long-form census, trying to shut down the Experimental Lakes Area, sending media relations personnel to accompany scientists at international conferences.

There are so many mindboggling instances, in fact, that the non-profit organization Evidence for Democracy has decided to create an interactive website to chronicle them all.

“Even for those of us who are following the issue closely, it’s still hard to keep track of it all,” says executive director Katie Gibbs.

“We were a little worried that if people hadn’t been following this from the get-go, they might think it’s just too complex or overwhelming of an issue to learn about this late in the game. We wanted this site to really be that entry point for people who haven’t been following it all along and see what has happened and why it matters.”

True North Smart and Free

The site, titled True North Smart and Free, divides the issues into three broad categories: funding cuts, communication restrictions and policy decisions that overtly disregard evidence. In addition, the site promotes Evidence for Democracy’s “Science Pledge,” which serves as a petition of sorts to reprioritize science and evidence-based decision making.

Gibbs notes more than 50 federal election candidates have signed it, including Elizabeth May, Marc Garneau and Kennedy Stewart. In addition to raising the public profile of the pledge, Gibbs says such commitments will help voters keep candidates accountable after the election.

Despite science not emerging as a priority in previous elections, Gibbs is hopeful that will change in the coming federal election. She says she’s heard from quite a few candidates who have noted the issue of muzzling scientists often comes up while door knocking.

Evidence for the Death of Evidence grows

In 2012, Gibbs helped lead the Death of Evidence rally, which famously drew hundreds of scientists to the streets.

That was followed in 2013 by the publication of Chris Turner’s The War on Science and in 2014 The Fifth Estate’s ominous documentary Silence of the Labs. The New Republic reported on the issue later in 2014, concluding: “Our northern neighbors are taking a page from George W. Bush's playbook.”

Just over two months ago, Fisheries and Oceans Canada scientist Steven Campana loudly quit due to alleged muzzling. Evidence for Democracy’s initiative may just push the matter into critical mass territory.

“I think the issue has got big enough,” Gibbs concludes. “It’s not just the science community that’s upset, it has reached that next level of awareness.”

Photo: Richard Webster

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

There has been a lot of discussion around Canada’s “War on Science” over the last two years, prompted by a major gathering of scientists in Ottawa during the summer of 2012 who announced the “Death of Evidence” in the country. The scientists marched in response to the infamous Budget Bill C-38 that killed funding for numerous federal science positions and research labs coast to coast. The rally’s lead organizer, scientist Katie Gibbs, says the Death of Evidence protest made way for a whole new breed of young Canadian scientists who are eager to stand up and defend their laboratories. It’s about more than just science, says Gibbs, it’s really all about democracy.

Katie Gibbs was known around the lab as the graduate student who cared deeply about the implications of her science. “While I was doing my PhD, I was kind of the rabble-rouser on the floor. You know, I always had volunteers coming to the lab to pick up posters, or storing protest signs under my desk, that sort of thing,” she told DeSmog Canada.

Most of the professors she worked with didn’t participate in any kind of advocacy, she said. “My supervisor, in particular, he wouldn’t even write a letter to the editor.”

In the summer of 2012, however, it wasn’t Gibbs pushing for the Death of Evidence rally, the event that forced Canada’s science crisis into the public eye. Instead a group of professors at the University of Ottawa began organizing a public event and turned to Gibbs when they realized they needed someone brave to be the face of the march.

“What was interesting was that it was a group of professors that started thinking around the rally. My supervisor poked his head into my office one day and said a bunch of professors were meeting to talk about doing something in response to the Omnibus Budget Bill. He said, ‘does anybody want to come,’ and I was like ‘hells yeah!’” Gibbs said, adding she became lead organizer after that meeting.

Gibbs says her professors’ involvement was an indication of how concerned the traditional scientific community was with the changes that were being made through new legislation under the Harper government.[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Generally scientists shy away from any form of advocacy, or even perceived advocacy, Gibbs explained. But given the current crisis of science in Canada that is changing with younger students, she said.

“The younger generation of scientists doesn’t seem to have the same hang ups around science advocacy that the older generation of scientists does.”

In order to channel the momentum of the scientific community after the 2012 rally, Gibbs launched Evidence for Democracy (E4D), an advocacy group dedicated to keeping science linked to decision-making in the country.

Part of the work of Evidence for Democracy consists in creating a distinction between advocating for policy and advocating for science itself, Gibbs explained.

“Normally in science when we talk about science advocacy we’re talking about: you do some research that shows A would be a good policy versus B, so you become an advocate for A and try to actually get that policy put in place.

Whereas what we’re advocating for is one step before that, in that we’re just advocating for science and for decisions to be made based on science. So it’s kind of less political or less polarizing than even traditional advocacy.”

For Gibbs, there is still some resistance to the very idea of science advocacy within the scientific community, but supporters are increasingly convinced of its necessity.

“I still feel scientists are hesitant but my argument is ‘if you’re not willing to advocate for the crucial role of science in public policy decisions then who is going to do that?’ That really has to come down to scientists,” she said.

The job of convincing the younger generation of scientists to get involved, however, has been much easier, Gibbs said. 

Katie Gibbs speaking at the Stand Up for Science rally in Ottawa. Photo by Kevin O'Donnell. 

“All the graduate scientists I worked with, they absolutely see the need for scientists to engage in that way and they have such a strong desire for their science to be relevant and for it to get out in the public space,” she said.

“Even for us [E4D] we have a ton of volunteers, most of them graduate students and it’s because we offer most of them the chance to work on policy outreach. They wouldn’t really get the opportunity to work on those kinds of issues in their traditional academic experience.”

Gibbs said younger scientists are choosing to study in the sciences because they are passionate about the outcomes of the science, rather than merely curious or passionate about the process. While more traditional scientists consider themselves separate from the policy outcomes of their research, younger scientists see themselves as a part of the larger complex of society, politics and policy.

“I know that was my case as well,” Gibbs said. “I was only interested in doing policy-relevant science. I enjoyed doing the science but my main passion was that it be used, rather than doing it just for the sake of doing it.”

As she sees it, this way of viewing science is politically “empowering.”

“I see evidence as really being the only way to hold governments accountable for their decisions,” Gibbs said. “Unless we actually know what information they are using to make decisions, we have no way of judging the quality of the decision.”

When it comes to the relationship between science and democracy, Gibbs said, it all comes down to evidence-based decision-making and accountability.

“I often say…that facts are a check on political power.”

Image Credit: Katie Gibbs by DeSmog Canada.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

It has been called “Stephen Harper’s war on science” in Canada and just plain "war on science" in the US. But whatever you call it, scientists everywhere are frustrated with how scientific research is treated in North America. With the American sequester cuts looming on the horizon and the Canadian government openly admitting that it is no longer interested in funding "discovery science," scientists are feeling accused, cut-off and shut-up.

It is becoming a trend in the United States and Canada to treat scientists like nay-sayers or rebels without a cause instead of like respected public figures. In cases where scientific evidence doesn't support industry, governments in both countries have allowed corporations and oil companies to cast doubts on research.

By dirt digging into scientists’ private lives and creating false parallel science, the pursuit of doing good science has become a complicated job. Character defamation and false research has not only offered enough leeway to proceed on potentially dangerous projects, it has done endless damage to the reputation of the scientific community.

Though President Obama promised otherwise when he “told scientists, engineers and doctors that his goal is to reach for a public and private research and development investment that we haven’t seen since the space race.”

The reality is, the 2013 sequester is expected to be devastating to many non-defense agencies. The National Institutes of Health will sustain funding cuts of around $1.6 billion, the National Science Foundation is losing $283 million, and the American Association of Science is looking at a cut of about $9.3 billion.

Similarly, the Canadian scientific research and development agency, the National Research Council (NRC), said earlier this month that they intent to perform only research that has “social or economic gain.”  They announced this as a departure from “discovery science,” which “comes from what scientists think is important,” to a focus on “innovation.” John McDougal, President of the NRC, said “scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value.”

The attack doesn’t stop at funding, however. For years, government scientists in Canada, working in areas such as Natural Resources, have “need[ed] permission from their minister’s office before they can go to the media with their results. [The ministry] then has say over whether they can talk to the media or not.”

The complaint that Government has been “muzzling” scientists has prompted the federal commissioner’s office to launch a full-scale investigation into "Stephen Harper’s War on Science." Since April this year, Suzanne Legault’s office has been looking into “the systematic efforts of the government of Canada to obstruct the right of the media—and through them, the Canadian public—to timely access to government scientists.”  Seven federal departments and agencies, from Environment Canada to the National Research Council of Canada will be investigated.

Scientists too are taking matters into their own hands and they are doing so by banding together against suppression. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) at the Center for Science and Democracy, in the US and PublicScience.ca in Canada are hard-working organizations that aim to help the public to “distinguish evidence from political positioning.” 

Image from the Union of Concerned Scientists anti-science cartoon competition.

Biologist Jeff Hutchings spoke out against the "muzzling" of scientists at the Death of Evidence demonstration on parliament hill last July.

He said: “When you inhibit the communication of science, you inhibit science. When you inhibit science, you inhibit the acquisition of knowledge. Government control over the ability of society to acquire knowledge has alarming precedence. An iron curtain is being drawn between science and society."

It’s not a good time to cut funding to scientific research.

“The challenges are only increasing,” Andrew Rosenberg of the UCS said in a recent interview. ”It’s not as if the issues of trying to maintain the health of the oceans is diminishing." The UCS has established a campaign to draw attention to scientific research in fields like Global Warming, Food and Agriculture, and Scientific Integrity.

Their tagline is: “Strengthening American Democracy by advancing the essential role of science, evidence-based decision making, and constructive debate as a means to improve the health, security and prosperity of all people.”

Image Credit: Union of Concerned Scientists cartoon competition via coExist

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Today federal scientists from Environment Canada presented research at an international toxicology conference in the U.S. that indicates contaminants from the Alberta tar sands are polluting the landscape on a scale much larger than previously thought.

A team lead by federal scientist Jane Kirk discovered contaminants in lakes as far as 100 kilometers away from tar sands operations. The federal research confirms and expands upon the hotly contested findings of aquatic scientist David Schindler who, in 2010, found pollution from the tar sands accumulating on the landscape up to 50 kilometers away.

"That means the footprint is four times bigger than we found," Schindler told Postmedia News.

Senior scientist Derek Muir, who presented some of the findings at Wednesday's conference, said the contaminated region is "potentially larger than we might have anticipated." The 'legacy' of chemicals in lake sediment gives evidence that tar sands pollution has been traveling long distances for decades. Samples show the build up of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, known to cause cancer in humans and to be toxic to aquatic animals, in 6 remote and undisturbed lakes up to 100 kilometers away from tar sands operations.

The pollutants are "petrogenic" in nature, meaning they are petroleum derived, and have steadily and dramatically increased since the 1970s, showing the contaminant levels "seem to parallel the development of the oilsands industry," Muir said.

After the release of Schindler's groundbreaking research on tar sands pollution in 2010 the Alberta government claimed the contaminants were naturally occurring and posed no risk to aquatic life.

However at today's conference, the annual meeting of the North American Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Kirk discussed the long list of 'priority pollutants' that accumulate in the region's snow. Within 50 kilometers of the tar sands, snowpack contains numerous contaminants including dangerous neurotoxins, such as methyl mercury, that bioaccumulate in food webs. Kirk found priority pollutants in the air were 1.5 to 13 times higher at test sites within 50 kilometers of tar sands refineries, and highest within 10 kilometers.

Abstracts for Kirk, Parrott and Muir's presentations can be found on pages 103 and 104 of the conference programme (pdf).

"We don't really know the fate of the various metals including mercury as they go from snow, to melt water to run-off and then into the aquatic environment," Muir told Postmedia.

The toxicity of melt water from snow falling in the tar sands region was researched by federal scientist Joanne Parrott, who also presented at the conference. Studying snow samples taken in 2011 and 2012 along the Athabasca River, Parrott found that the melt water was toxic to minnow larvae, even when diluted down to 25 percent. "The larval fish don't do very well in that snow at all," she said.

Parrott suggests melt water, once mixed with water from the Athabasca River, will no longer be toxic to minnows.

Snow melt, however, provides a significant amount of water to tributaries where fish hatch in the spring, says Schindler. "My big concern is that slowly because of mortalities at spring melt, that this will erode the fishery, killing off the embryos," he told Postmedia, pointing to the abnormally low numbers of fish in the Muskeg River as a possible occurrence.

Parrott plans to expand her research to consider whether young fish in tributaries that feed the Athabasca River are affected by the pollution.

Schindler's research has already highlighted the increasing incidence of fish deformity in areas downstream of tar sands operations, like Lake Athabasca. "I think what could happen is that the few embryos that manage to survive, deformed as they are, struggle down to Lake Athabasca," he said, adding the fish look "so horrible" the First Nations who depend on them for survival will not eat them, even if they don't have confirmed high levels of contaminants.

"I think that's fair enough, they wouldn't sell in Safeway," Schindler commented.

The scientists' presence at the conference is significant given the Harper government's strict control of scientific communications surrounding the tar sands. Federal scientists were prevented from speaking with the media at the same conference in Boston last year.

An internal document uncovered by Postmedia instructed federal scientists to avoid answering media questions, saying "if scientists are approached for interviews at the conference, the EC communications policy will be followed by referring the journalist to the media relations…phone number. An appropriate spokesperson will then be identified depending on journalist questions."

After Postmedia's Mike De Souza released the internal document last week, Environment Canada made arrangements for the news agency to speak with both Muir and Parrott.

Postmedia's Margaret Munro explains: "Environment Canada earlier this month said scientists were not available to comment on their findings of contamination around the oilsands. The department’s media office arranged this week’s interviews with Muir and Parrott after Postmedia News obtained details of the reports the scientists will present at the U.S. conference on Wednesday."

As DeSmog covered in an earlier post, the Harper government's heavy-handed treatment of federal scientists led to a mass demonstration this summer, where scientists and academics mourned the "Death of Evidence," claiming "Stephen Harper Hates Science." 

The government's strict communications policy is seen by some as an attempt to silence critics voicing science-based opposition to development of the tar sands.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Canadian government is working hard behind the scenes to cover up the negative effects that tar sands extraction is having on the local environment, wildlife, communities and the global climate. According to Access to Information documents obtained by Postmedia's Mike De Souza, the Stephen Harper government has actively suppressed the release of vital information regarding the spread of tar sands contamination by muzzling federal scientists.

The gag order, according to De Souza, came on the heels of a newly researched government report in November 2011 which confirmed the findings of University of Alberta scientists Erin N. Kelly and David Schindler. The scientists discovered concentrations of toxics such as heavy metals were higher near tar sands operations, showing a positive correlation between tar sands activity and the spread of contaminants in the local environment.

The government of Canada and the government of Alberta denied the correlation, saying local waterways tested showed no signs of toxic contamination and reports of mutated and cancerous fish downstream from the tar sands were unfounded.

The document uncovered by De Souza shows that federal scientists who could confirm the University of Alberta results were restricted from speaking to the media: "If scientists are approached for interviews at the conference, the [Environment Canada] communications policy will be followed by referring the journalist to the media relations…phone number. An appropriate spokesperson will then be identified depending on journalist questions."

Federal scientists were also given a list of scripted responses, explaining government tests in the spring of 2010 showed no toxics in the Athabasca River and established no links between contaminants and abnormal and sick fish.

Scientists were also directed to avoid questions regarding environmental monitoring of the tar sands and the role Environment Canada plays in the region with this scripted line: "I am a scientist. I'm not in a position to answer that question but I'd be happy to refer you to an appropriate spokesperson."

David Schindler, co-author of the 2010 University of Alberta study commented, "it is a good study, and [the author] is a very fine young scientist, who should be trusted to comment on her own results."

"Similarly, Derek Muir, her supervisor and co-author, is one of the world's top contamination experts, and Canadians should be ashamed that he cannot discuss results directly with the public, but must go through an official spokesperson."

In 2010, the results of Kelly and Schindler's contaminant analysis caused an uproar in Alberta and federal governments. Eager to promote expansion in the tar sands, the Canadian government failed to install a sound and independent monitoring system for the region.

Any data used to support the government's official position, that no contamination had occurred, was supplied by the oil and gas industry.

Schindler conducted a basic analysis of waterways in the region, sampling water both upstream from tar sands operations, and downstream. What Schindler and his team discovered was a considerable accumulation of pollutants in water downstream from tar sands development which includes open-pit mining and refining.

Most notably, Schindler discovered that airborne pollutants were being deposited on land, far from contaminated waterways like the Athabasca River. It was Schindler who first recognized the role snow was playing in the transportation and depositing of tar sands pollution.

These land-based pollutants mirrored contamination of waterways. Schindler found that "embryos of fish exposed to oilsands' water and sediment have very high rates of mortality, and among the survivors, there are very high rates of deformities."

His research confirmed the concerns of local communities, First Nations and environmental groups that the fast-tracking of tar sands expansion without careful monitoring was having negative effects on the environment and those living downstream.

The findings also contradicted research conducted by the industry/government group Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP), a group Schindler claims "violated every rule" of long-term study.

In perhaps one of Canada's most scandalous moments in recent history, Dr. Schindler was publicly discredited by the provincial and federal government. His research and his credibility were called into question when the Alberta government went on record to say his study – which was published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – was biased and that contaminants in the region's watershed occur naturally and not as a result of industrial activities.

The treatment Schindler received as a result of his research concerned scientists across Canada, many of whom felt the federal government was conduction a 'witch hunt' to silence information that might fuel opposition to the tar sands.

Schindler's experience was just one of many reasons why scientists from across Canada held a mock memorial this summer on Parliament Hill, mourning the "Death of Evidence," caused by the muzzling of scientists by the federal government.

The motto of the event was clear: "Stephen Harper Hates Science."

To this day no clear environmental monitoring program is in place to track and analyze the effects that tar sands extraction and refining has on the local environment. Last month the Alberta government announced the creation of a new scientific body to monitor the impacts of development, which Diana McQueen, the province's Environment Minister, suggests will be 'credible' and operate at an 'arms-length' from industry and government. The plan, however, has yet to take any real shape.

"This is yet another plan to develop a plan," said Greenpeace energy and climate campaigner Mike Hudema. "There is still no funding commitment and no clear governance model to ensure independence. The province should stop approving new projects based on flawed data and incomplete information until this gets sorted out."

Image credit: Jodi Stark

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.