Media policies in most Canadian government departments do not effectively encourage open communication between federal scientists and journalists, says a report released Wednesday.

Published by Evidence for Democracy (E4D) and Simon Fraser University (SFU), the report said more than 85 per cent of the 16 departments studied were assessed a grade of C or lower in terms of openness of communication, protection against political interference, rights to free speech, and protection for whistleblowers.

The 22-page report also said that when compared to grades for U.S. departments (scored by the Union of Concerned Scientists), all but one Canadian department performed worse than the U.S. average.

“Overwhelmingly, current media policies do not meet the basic requirements for supporting open communication between federal scientists and the media,” Katie Gibbs, E4D’s executive director and an author on the report, said in an accompanying media release.

“These policies could prevent taxpayer-funded scientists from sharing their expertise with the public on important issues from drug safety to climate change,” Gibbs said.

The report — “Can Scientists Speak?” — gave the Department of National Defense the highest mark, a B grade, while the Canadian Space Agency, Public Works and Government Services, Industry Canada, and Natural Resources Canada each received an F.

Policies governing science-based departments received on average a C- for how well they facilitate open communication between scientists and the media, the report added.

Described as the first of its kind in Canada, the report comes after a 2013 survey of federal government scientists commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) found 90 per cent feel they are not allowed to speak freely to the media about their work.

The PIPSC survey also found almost 86 per cent of the scientists felt they would face censure or retaliation for speaking about a departmental decision that could harm public health, safety or the environment.

The survey, which is included in a report titled “The Big Chill,” is described as the first extensive effort to gauge the scale and impact of “muzzling” and political interference among federal scientists since the Stephen Harper government introduced communications policies requiring them to seek approval before being interviewed by journalists.

On Wednesday, PIPSC President Debi Daviau said the C- average for policies that govern science communication with the media is not something to be proud of.

“This is a grade that says Canada is failing its most fundamental obligations to keep Canadians adequately informed of urgent science matters such as climate change,” Daviau said.

E4D, a national non-partisan, non-profit organization promoting evidence-based public policy, provided several key recommendations in its report that departments can implement to improve communication between federal scientists and the Canadian public.

Policies should be easily available online for scientists, journalists and the public, E4D recommended, and it should be explicit that scientists can speak freely about their research to facilitate clear and timely communications.

Another recommendation said scientists should also have the right to final review of media releases that make substantial use of their work to protect against political interference.

In addition, scientists should be able to express their personal opinions as long as they make clear they are not representing the views of their department.

The report also recommended there be provisions to protect whistleblowers and effectively resolve disputes.

Federal government scientists play an important role in keeping Canadians safe and healthy by providing their expertise to both the public and decision-makers, the report said.

“The safety of our food, air, water, and environment depends on the ability of federal scientists to provide information to Canadians,” it added.

CBC News said it requested comments about the report from several government departments, who redirected the request to Ed Holder, minister of state for science and technology.

Holder did not respond directly, CBC said, but stated in the House of Commons on Wednesday afternoon that “ministers are the primary spokespersons for government departments yet scientists have and are readily available to share their research with Canadians.”

Arne Mooers, an SFU professor of biodiversity and an advisor for the report, said federal scientists are important public servants with critical expertise.

“They should be encouraged to inform the public in their areas of expertise because only an informed public can evaluate what governments are doing on their behalf,” Mooers said.

“Strengthening communication between scientists and the public strengthens our democracy.”

The E4D report was published one day after Julie Gelfand, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, released an audit showing Canada will almost certainly not meet its international greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2020 and doesn’t even have a plan showing how the nation might achieve its climate change goals.

Image Credit: Zack Embree

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.

A new survey of federal researchers and scientists reveals the startling degree to which they are limited in their ability to share their research findings with the public, including in cases of the public good, and for the first time gives a clear view of the degree to which scientists feel political interference determines how their work presented.

The study, called The Big Chill, reveals that 86 percent feel they would be reprimanded if they spoke out to the media in a situation where a decision by their department goes against what their research finds to be in the public interest.  A full 90 percent also said they are simply not allowed to freely speak to the media about their work.

In more concrete terms, 37 percent say that, within the last five years, they have been directly stopped from sharing their expertise in response to a question from the media or the public, and nearly one quarter have been forced by government officials to modify conclusions of their research for non-scientific reasons.

The study was commissioned by the Professional Institute for the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), which represents scientists and researchers across the federal government. While it was already well-known that regulations brought in by the Conservative government had limited the ability of researchers to share their findings, PIPSC President Gary Corbett said even he was surprised by the results.

“I found it very surprising, including the degree of political interference,” he said in an interview with DeSmog Canada. As an example, Corbett pointed to the fact that 50 percent of respondents said they were aware of actual cases of political interference in the communication of scientific research.

“The findings should be very concerning to the public,” he added.

The survey was sent to 15,398 PIPSC members who are scientists, researchers and engineers in over 40 federal departments and agencies. Of these, 4,069 (26%) responded. The survey, conducted by Environics Research, is considered accurate + or – 1.6%, 19 times out of 20.

This survey is one more voice in a growing chorus calling on the Conservative government to roll back restrictions on government scientists speaking publicly. Since last year, two days of protest have taken place, and concerned scientists have launched Evidence for Democracy (E4D), a non-profit group dedicated to ensuring federal researchers and scientists are able to speak freely about their work.

Organizers with E4D say that these findings help to reinforce what observers have noticed over the past several years.

“For the past few years, we've seen different groups raising alarm bells, we've seen a number of specific cases of government scientists being muzzled,” E4D co-founder Dr. Katie Gibbs told DeSmog Canada over the phone. “But whenever the government did respond, they would usually say, 'No, there's no muzzling going on.' And people would say, maybe these are just a few isolated incidents.”

“What I think is really important about the survey is that it shows that these aren't just a few isolated incidents… It really is across the board that scientists feel that they cannot speak out.”

When reached for comment about the latest study, Minister of State for Science and Technology Greg Rickford responded with an email statement that the Conservative government has made “record” investments in Canadian science and that, “We are working to strengthen partnerships to get more ideas from the lab to the market-place and increase our wealth of knowledge. Science can power commerce, create jobs, and improve the quality of life for all Canadians.”

The Minister did not specifically acknowledge the survey, nor did his office respond when asked in a follow-up about whether he finds the results of the study concerning. Rickford was recently at the centre of some controversy after a leaked fundraising memo from his riding referred to a group of Canadian scientists as "radical ideologues."*

This lack of meaningful response from the government has been common, said Gibbs. In order to raise public awareness, E4D have launched a website to compile instances of government interference at http://scienceuncensored.ca, to present a more global look at the issue.

Starting in 2010 with Environment Canada adopting a new policy of “speaking with one voice” which would go through the communications department, the timeline on the website documents several cases of what have become high-profile instances of scientists being stopped from speaking with the press. This includes Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristi Miller not being able to speak publicly about her research on salmon fisheries, even though it had been published in the journal Science in 2011.

Later that year, Environment Canada scientist David Tarasick was not allowed to speak with the media about research he did on ozone layer depletions, which was published in Nature. In 2012, federal scientists attending the Polar Year conference in Montreal saw themselves shadowed by media handlers. Most recently, US scientists working on a joint US-Canada project under the DFO refused to sign on to new, strict confidentiality measures saying it would lead to “muzzling.”

The site also contains a form letter that readers can send to all five party leaders, calling for reforms to government policy.

Both Gibbs and Corbett believe that the survey, combined with the recent history of government restrictions, points to a need for an overhaul of communications policy when it comes to scientific research. “Right now, scientists can't do the job they were hired to do,” said Corbett.

“What we've been calling for is for the government to implement a new communications policy that makes it explicit that scientists are able to communicate their research to the media,” said Gibbs, pointing to recent changes in the UK and the US along those lines. “It's not impossible.”

With a federal government that refuses to address the issue publicly, though, any change coming soon seems improbable.

* An earlier version of this post stated a memo referring to Canadian scientists as "radical ideologues" came from Minister Rickford. It was written by the president of the Kenora Electoral District Association in Minister Rickford's riding. 09/09/2014

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.