Cue the lab coat-clad politicians with their bubbling beakers: the #VoteScience campaign launches today with a goal of putting science front and centre in federal candidates’ minds as they go about campaigning this fall. 

Organizers say the campaign is filling a void in the conversations we expect as the election progresses.

“Realistically, if we did nothing, the baseline is that there would be almost no mention of science in the election campaign,” says Katie Gibbs, director of Evidence for Democracy, one of the groups behind the campaign. “The bar is often pretty low.” 

When Gibbs talks about science, she means the funding structures, the integration of science into policy and transparency and openness. 

Cuts to science have been in the news more in the last few years as U.S. President Donald Trump has for three years in a row attempted to rampage through the edifice of American publicly funded science.

“All Canadians benefit from our track record of scientific discovery and progress,” says Farah Qaiser, a graduate student and president of the Toronto Science Policy Network. “But these kinds of contributions and life-saving discoveries can only happen in a society where we support the funding of scientific research and support the next generation of scientists.” 

Together with Evidence for Democracy and the Toronto Science Policy Network, four other science organizations including the Science and Policy Exchange and the Canadian Association for Neuroscience are supporting the push for science to factor in the federal election.

‘Science is rarely a key issue in federal elections’

The platform the groups have launched gives a number of pathways for people to get involved. There’s a form letter that visitors to the site can edit and send automatically to candidates in their ridings, with language like “I’m hoping that you will champion policies that invest in public-interest science; ensure open, honest and timely communication of scientific information; and make public the evidence considered in government decisions.” 

A sign can be printed with a custom slogan pledging support for science, with the intention of supporters taking a selfie with it and posting it to social media.

There are also tools for people interested in going further — resources for writing and placing op-eds in newspapers, for engaging directly with candidates or for hosting events such as debates or roundtable discussions.

Ultimately, the tools are intended to communicate to candidates that there is a constituency in Canada that cares about science.

“Science is rarely a key issue in federal elections — and we think that has to change,” Qaiser says.

Holding politicians accountable for science promises

The lack of attention to real issues of science is mirrored by a feverish desire among politicians to appear on the side of science. The terms “science-based” or “evidence-based” appear somewhere in the promotional website copy of every major political party (besides Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party) running in the 2019 federal election. But Gibbs worries that through their widespread adoption the terms have lost some of their meaning and have been reduced to buzzwords.

“We’re at that point where there’s a risk of every politician just saying, ‘Oh, we’re going to make science-based decisions,’” Gibbs says. “It’s great that we have made progress in politicians supporting these ideas, but the next step is: how do we hold them accountable?”

Even the term “science” itself can be both overly narrow and overly broad: it can be broad enough to be hijacked in Orwellian ways by anti-science groups like the Friends of Science climate denial organization, while it can be too narrow to carry meaning for many people. 

“It can be captured by proponents of various advocacy issues,” explains Paul Dufour, adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa. “That needs to be explained sometimes — that we’re not just talking about some person in a lab.”

During the last federal election, the Liberals promised to restore the status of science after years of cuts and undermining during the Harper years. Some of those promises were met, while others were not. 

A promise to invest $40 million a year to increase co-op placements for students in STEM subjects was reduced by half. There is no evidence of progress on a promise to create a single portal for accessing government science. 

But other election promises, such as restoring funding to ocean science, or creating a position of chief science adviser, were followed through on. A promise to unmuzzle government scientists has been officially — though, in practice, halfheartedly and inconsistently — implemented.

“I definitely think we have made progress over the last four years, and that’s partly due to the work of the science community,” says Gibbs. “But the gold standard for a lot of these things are pretty far off.” 

‘Science is an important part of our civic duty’

Dufour expects that with campaigns like #VoteScience, science will become a major part of the election, with the parties vying for youth votes by one-upping one another’s scientific credentials. But he cautions that the relationship needs to be a “two-way street” — with scientists making their case for how they can help politicians do their jobs more effectively, through better informed decisions.

“Politicians are used to the fact that people come to them looking for money, let’s put it bluntly,” he says.

An important step, he says, is to convince the public to make sure politicians are making use of the science that’s available to them.

“Science is an important part of our civic duty, if you will, in terms of turning up to vote and ensuring that the candidates understand that the decisions they are going to make are going to rely on some rational basis.”

Correction made at 4:30 p.m. on August 8: The article originally stated that U.S. President Donald Trump has made cuts to science. In fact, the president has attempted to make cuts to the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, but was prevented from doing so by Congress.

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.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned aggressively on the issue of science in the lead up to the last federal election. And it makes sense that he did: for the first time ever in Canadian history the issue of scientific integrity was a major election issue for voters across the nation.

Images of shuttered libraries, gagged scientists and dumpsters full of books haunted the Canadian imagination under the Harper government.

Trudeau promised to change all of that. Brandishing the language of the scientific community itself Trudeau painted a vision of a Canadian scientific renaissance, with the restoration of scientific integrity and the veritable holy grail of political vows: evidence-based decision-making.

“As a scientist, I was personally thrilled with the Liberal government’s vocal support for science, especially regarding the critical role that scientific evidence should play in informed decision-making,” Wendy Palen, associate professor and biologist at Simon Fraser University, told DeSmog Canada.

In the early days of the federal government under Trudeau, there were several events that shored up that sense of optimism including the anchoring of ministerial duties in science in open mandate letters and restored funding for research in the first Liberal budget.

Trudeau also promised to bring social and scientific credibility back to the environmental assessments of major resource projects.

“I think I can say the scientific community breathed a sigh of relief over the change in attitude around science and the role of scientific decision-making,” Palen said.

But, she added, that sentiment has stopped short in recent months.

In September the federal government approved the controversial Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal near Prince Rupert, B.C. The terminal is expected to become Canada’s single largest point source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Although opposed by all major environmental organizations in B.C., the project and its treatment under the federal review system raised a number of red flags for the scientific community in particular.

Flora Bank juts out towards Lelu Island, where the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal is to be located. Photo: Ocean Ecology

Proposed for the Flora Bank estuary, a unique eelgrass bed that provides resting grounds for hundreds of thousands of juvenile salmon from the Skeena watershed, the LNG terminal’s proposed site clashed hard with biologists and members of the conservation community who say, when it comes to salmon, a worse location simply couldn’t have been selected.

The federal environmental assessment of the LNG terminal — which concluded destroyed salmon habitat could simply be rebuilt elsewhere — was so fraught with problems members of the scientific community penned an open letter to Trudeau and his cabinet, pleading with them to reject the project’s review.

In that letter, scientists detailed a fundamentally flawed assessment process in which peer-reviewed science was ignored, basic principles of scientific investigation were violated and research paid for by the project’s proponent, Malaysian-owned Petronas, was given primacy.

The federal government ignored those pleas from the scientific community and on a September evening environment and climate minister Catherine McKenna announced the project’s approval.

“This project was subject to a rigorous environmental assessment and today’s announcement reflects this commitment,” she said.

Hearing those words, many scientists in B.C. were simply perplexed.

More recently Trudeau along with members of his cabinet approved the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline under a review process so thoroughly broken, Trudeau campaigned on the explicit promise to scrap it entirely.

But that’s not what happened and last month scientists were again baffled at the cooptation of the language of science in the pipeline’s approval.

“This is a decision based on rigorous debate, on science and on evidence. We will not be swayed by political arguments," Trudeau said.

"If I thought this project was unsafe for the B.C. coast, I would reject it."

For Palen, the announcement was particularly confounding.

Along with two co-authors, Palen wrote to Trudeau in the weeks prior to the pipeline announcement informing him of a new analysis that identified significant gaps in knowledge and research specifically on the impacts of Alberta oilsands crude, known as bitumen, on marine organisms.

A review of over 9,000 studies found not enough is known about the potential effects of an oil spill from the tankers that will be fed by the Trans Mountain pipeline to say with certainty the project is safe.

“The government’s words and use of the words ‘evidence-based decision-making’ are starting to be questioned by myself and others in the scientific community,” Palen said.

“I heard many of my colleagues wonder what the government really means by ‘evidence-based decision-making’ because those aren’t just empty words — they have a really specific meaning to those of us in science policy and in scientific fields.”

Palen said two important components of the scientific use of evidence are one, that the information is publicly available and preferably independently verified and two, that subsequent decisions are made on the basis of that evidence.

“That’s in contrast to making decisions and then subsequently backing up that decision by the selective use of science or evidence,” she said.

“That’s a big philosophical difference.”

Canadian Scientists Say They’re Unsure What @JustinTrudeau Means When He Says ‘Science’ https://t.co/nY9aCktGiB #cdnsci #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/MPEyzW1Bad

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 16, 2016

Palen said the federal government does not make publicly available the information it bases its decisions on so there is no way to independently verify the data or research undergirding these major project approvals.

Kathleen Walsh, executive director for the science-advocacy group Evidence for Democracy, said that’s a big problem for a government that wants to present itself as evidence-based.

“If government is serious about these decisions being based on science, they need to make that kind of information open and available and they need to be transparent about it,” Walsh told DeSmog Canada.

When it comes to gaps in knowledge, like on the effects of bitumen in marine environments, making evidence-based decisions becomes even more problematic.

“It’s one thing to ignore the evidence that exists but it's another to completely ignore gaps in evidence and pretend they’re not there,” she said.

“So for the federal government to say these decisions are based on evidence or science is not necessarily truthful.”

Walsh said she doesn’t want to elide the progress this government has made on the science file, more generally.

“Certainly there have been some big wins for them in the last weeks on science,” Walsh said, referring to the announcement of a Chief Science Advisor position as well as new rules to prevent the muzzling of federal scientists.

“But we can’t get that confused with their record and say it’s perfect.”

And making those grand claims about science will become more difficult going forward when the Chief Science Advisor position is filled, Walsh said.

“That person is going to have to answer these really hard questions about evidence and government decisions. I’m really looking forward to seeing how that plays out.”

In addition to the introduction of a scientific advisor, Walsh said the federal government’s current review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is also a huge opportunity to start getting science right in the country, especially as it relates to major project approvals.

Aerin Jacob, a Liber Ero postdoctoral fellow in environmental studies at the University of Victoria, couldn’t agree more.

“One of my motivations for being involved in the environmental assessment review is it’s not a very sexy topic,” Jacob told DeSmog Canada. “A lot of people think it’s boring.”

The Act went underwent significant changes in 2012 under the Harper government that many say has left some of the nation’s most important environmental legislation toothless.

“This is an opportunity to take a look at the changes to the Act in 2012 and the ramifications those changes have had. And not just to repeal those changes, but to take a good look at what good environmental assessments can be and to make sure Canada is a leader in that regard.”

Jacob recently organized the creation and release of an open letter from nearly 2,000 young scientists and researchers to the federal government as part of the review, calling on the government to return scientific integrity to the environmental assessment process.

The letter, which Jacob presented to the expert review panel in Nanaimo this week, outlines five ways the federal government could improve scientific rigour in the assessment process, including the use of best available evidence, making information and data available to the public, evaluating cumulative impacts of projects and eliminating conflicts of interest.

Dr. Aerin Jacob speaks at a Before the Abstract event about her research in the Serengeti. Photo: Before the Abstract

“We see what happens when science takes a back seat in this process,” Jacob said, pointing to the “entirely preventable” tailings pond collapse at the Mount Polley mine in B.C. and the recent approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

“With something like the Kinder Morgan decision, there was a lot of concern that has been raised over the last couple of years about that process. Scientists and independent experts have said again and again the evidence being present there isn’t the best evidence, it doesn’t paint the whole picture.”

Jacob said the lack of transparency around the evidence the government used to makes it decision about the pipeline is “deeply concerning.”

“Although it’s possible there is other evidence the government is considering, it’s not evident because we can’t see it.”

“It’s like a black box of decision-making. That’s not scientifically rigorous.”

Jacob said what her and other young scientists and researchers are proposing isn’t radical.

“These aren’t crazy new ideas, to share that information and share how you arrive at a conclusion. This is what we’re taught since elementary school: show your work.”

Jacob said she feels when it comes to science, there is a culture change underway in Canada.

Scientists were eager to get involved in the environmental assessment review, she said.

In Nanaimo, Jacob told the panel young scientists like herself have had a “coming of age.”

“Muzzling of scientists, putting data in dumpsters — that was the norm” for her and other young scientists under the former government. 

“It was not a good time to be looking at a scientific career in Canada and we do not want that ever to be the case professionally or personally.”

“I really can’t underscore how big an opportunity this review is,” Jacob told DeSmog Canada. “It could influence everything about how we make decisions about the environment.”

Jacob said so many of the social concerns that have arisen around major projects like pipelines and LNG terminals could be resolved through a more robust assessment process, starting with greater transparency and rigour from the outset.

The federal expert panel will conclude its review of the environmental assessment act this week and will make recommendations to the federal government by the end of January 2017. A secondary process, which will include the input of a multi-interest advisory committee, will follow on the heels of the panel’s report.

“I really hope the panel will take a bold approach. We’re talking a major overhaul here. And I hope our elected officials have the courage to implement it.”

Image: Justin Trudeau at a Science North event in Sudbury, Ontario. Photo: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

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.

Canada’s new Minister of Innovation, Science and Development, Navdeep Bains, told reporters on Parliament Hill on Thursday that the federal government is restoring the mandatory long-form census just in time for its next rollout in 2016.

Canada conducts a census every five years by sending an eight-question form to Canadian households. However, one-fifth of those households traditionally received a mandatory 61-question census that provides the government with much more insight into the lives of Canadians.

In 2010, the Harper government cancelled the mandatory long-form census, replacing it with a short voluntary survey developed by Statistics Canada. Researchers said the data provided through the voluntary survey lacked detail, leaving major gaps in knowledge about areas with poor survey response rates.

Munir Sheikh, the former head of Statistics Canada, resigned in protest.

Bains said the decision to reinstate the long-form census falls into the government’s commitment to rebuild scientific knowledge in Canada.

“Our plan for an open and fair government starts with the reinstatement of the mandatory long form census,” Bains tweeted.

Our plan for an open and fair government starts with the reinstatement of the mandatory long form census. pic.twitter.com/quyL3TQrav

— Navdeep Bains (@NavdeepSBains) November 5, 2015

Our government is committed to creating and implementing sound, evidence-based policies built on quality data.

— Navdeep Bains (@NavdeepSBains) November 5, 2015

“Our government is committed to creating and implementing sound, evidence-based policies built on quality data.”

“Success!” science-advocacy group Evidence for Democracy posted to its Facebook page. “The new Liberal government has announced that the mandatory long for census will be reinstated immediately…This would not have happened without your calls for smart government decision-making.”

Wendy Palen, associate professor of ecology at Simon Fraser University and board member with Evidence for Democracy, said the long-form census is key to evidence-based decision-making in Canada.

And while the idea of evidence-based decision-making “is a little wonky and process-oriented,” it’s actually a “really important and fundamental cornerstone of effective democracy,” Palen said.

Practicing evidence-based decision-making means that “we invest in things like our pubic science capacity to study things that are of national importance…so we can craft policies around that evidence we’ve collected,” Palen said.

She added the long-form census is a “really important piece for evaluating the consequences of [our] decisions” and gives us deeper insights into “our environment, our economy and our internal demographics.”

Palen said the best available science was excluded from the decision-making process in Canada under the Harper government, which spent $22 million taxpayer dollars switching the long-form census to a voluntary survey.

At the time, the government justified its decision by arguing they were protecting Canadians’ privacy, although the statistical information gathered in the census is purged of personal details so cannot be traced to any individual.

The limited data made available from the 2011 census left all levels of government, researchers, universities, civil society organizations, commerce groups and city planners unable to determine basic facts about the populations they served.

Faith-based organizations said the shoddy information made it difficult to track the effect of policy on religious and cultural minorities. Business groups including the Conference Board of Canada and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce urged the Harper government to reverse its decision.

The Canadian Medical Association said the lack of data would limit the effective use of health information and delivery of programs.

Advocacy organizations said it was impossible to tell with any accuracy how poverty rates were affecting marginalized, low-income families.

City planners in Hamilton, Ont., were left wondering about the sudden decline of the city’s Chinese population while Toronto struggled to understand if high-need communities would benefit from more subsidized child care or free skills training programs.

Palen said organizations like Evidence for Democracy play a crucial role in providing a network of scientific experts to help improve the use of evidence in support of the democratic process in Canada. She added her organization will also track how well the Liberal government is keeping its science-related campaign promises.

“I think it’s important to hold our government accountable,” she said, adding, “but now is not the time for that.”

“Right now our role I think is in cheering the government on, saying, you made these great promises in the campaign and you elevated the issues around science during the campaign because they are important to Canadians.”

“I think our role right now is to offer our expertise, offer our help on making good on some of those promises.”

Image: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister Navdeep Bains via Flickr

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 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.