A push to prioritize economic gains over basic research is endangering science and academic freedom in countries around the world, according to a new report published by a leading researchers union, the French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers (SNCS-FSU).

The group surveyed higher education and research unions in 12 countries including France, Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S.

The research union found governments internationally are pushing for policies “geared towards innovation in order to spur consumption and competitiveness,” according to Patrick Monfort, secretary-general of the SNCS-FSU. “Budget cuts are often blamed for our problems,” he said, “but they are only part of the picture.”

Monfort told the prestigious journal Nature that scientists in Canada have been particularly hard hit, not only by broad funding cuts, but contentious communications protocols that prevent their freedom of expression.

The new French-language report mentions Environment Canada scientist David Tarasick, who was prevented from speaking about his research on the ozone layer as well as Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristi Miller, who was prevented from speaking with the media about her research into declining salmon stocks.

The report also notes Natural Resources Canada scientist Scott Dallimore who was not allowed to speak with media about a flood that occurred 13,000 years ago without receiving ministerial approval.

The turn to applied research and science that directly benefits the economy threatens the job security of professional scientists, concludes the new report. The problem is affecting the international scientific community to such an extent the group will call for an international science campaign at their upcoming Higher Education and Research Conference this November.

Canada’s so-called “War on Science” has made international headlines, especially after deep funding cuts led to the closure of some of Canada’s most important research centres. Thousands of federal scientists from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as well as Environment Canada have lost their jobs as a result of the cuts.

Since 2006 the Harper government has introduced strict communications procedures that prevent scientists from speaking freely about – and at times even publishing – their research. Federal scientists are required to gain upper-level bureaucratic approval before they speak with journalists about their work, leading the international scientific community to call for the 'unmuzzling' of Canada’s scientists.

A report last year from the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre catalogued numerous instances of muzzling and led to an investigation by Canada’s information commissioner Suzanne Legault. That investigation is on-going.

Another report, released by the Professional Institute for the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), released in October 2013 found 37 per cent of federal researchers and scientists felt that within the last five years they were directly prevented from sharing their expertise with the public or media.

Nearly 25 per cent said they were forced to by government officials to modify their research for non-scientific reasons.

PIPSC president Gary Corbett told DeSmog Canada he found the level of political interference in federal science “very surprising.”

“The findings should be very concerning to the public,” he said, adding a full 50 per cent of scientists said they were aware of cases of political interference in the communication of scientific research.

The PIPSC survey came on the heels of a fundraising letter from the president of the Kenora Electoral District Association that referred to a group of Canadian scientists as “radical ideologues.”*

The letter was mentioned in the recent SNCS-FSU report, noting the phrase “radical ideologues” is “a term normally reserved for terrorists.”

Excerpt from the French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers report.

The muzzling of scientists in Canada – and its political implications – is well documented in DeSmog Canada contributor Chris Turner’s book “The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Willful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada” and has gained celebrity attention from the likes of actress Evangeline Lilly.

In an interview with DeSmog Canada, Lilly recently said she was “terrified” to hear about the muzzling of Canadian scientists.

“All over Canada right now scientists are having their funding pulled,” she said, “especially scientists who are speaking about climate change.”

“I rely on the experts in this world, experts like scientists and journalists, to give me the information to help guide me, to help me guide the government and I think that circle is the way democracy is supposed to work,” she said.

* An earlier version of this article stated the letter calling Canadian scientists "radical ideologues" was sent by Minister Greg Rickford. It was sent by the president of the Kenora Electoral District Association. 09/09/2014

Image Credit: Stand Up for Science rally in Vancouver. Photo by 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.

This is a post by Michael Harris, originally published on iPolitics.

“Everything has a crack in it; that’s how the light gets in.” Leonard Cohen, take a bow.

Another crack has appeared in the Harper government’s surreptitious but merciless war to muzzle Canadian scientists — and just about everyone else.

The light entering through this particular crack shines on a disturbing fact. Canada, the only parliamentary democracy in the Commonwealth where a government has been found in contempt of Parliament, is now the only democracy in the world where a government bureaucrat can suppress scientific research.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, where a reign of terror aimed at choking off internal leaks has been in full swing since the disastrous decision to close the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), has issued a new policy on the publication of scientific papers.

Although there has always been a departmental policy on the publication of scholarly research, the 2013 version of the rules features some crucial differences.

Previous policies applied only to those papers prepared by DFO scientists. If government scientists teamed up with non-DFO scientists on a paper, it was merely “recommended” that DFO scientists adhere to the departmental publication policy.

The new policy applies to all submissions and DFO approval is required. Just to make sure scientists get the message, that part of the revised guidelines is printed in bold italics. Making things worse, the new policy does not lay out the criteria for giving thumbs-down to a publication.

How will it work? In a word, not the way it used to and not to the country’s benefit — assuming that intellectual freedom remains a core requirement of good science. In previous versions of DFO’s publication policy from 1997 and 2010, the word “copyright” doesn’t appear. In the new policy, the word shows up like flies at a picnic.

In fact, a footnote to the new policy clearly indicates that the divisional manager of DFO scientists must “sign off” on the copyright form, even after a manuscript has been accepted by a scientific journal. That gives the bureaucrat eleventh-hour powers to block a paper if DFO doesn’t want the information to be available to the scientific community or the public. One scientist familiar with that aspect of the new policy said: “Sounds like classic muzzling to me.”

Even if never exercised, the mere existence of this new power for DFO managers could suppress scientific ideas, hypotheses, data and conclusions that might raise serious objections to government policy.

Canadian government scientists have always rankled under policies that introduced politics into their profession. Scientists were muzzled in the 1990s by DFO managers over the creation of huge reservoirs in Northern Quebec. The federal government of the day didn’t want to stir up Quebec separatist sentiments. Accordingly, it discouraged its scientists from setting out the impact of the reservoir development from a scientific point of view.

The extension of the former publishing policy to papers authored by non-government scientists, and the assigning of final copyright approval to a government manager, will almost certainly discourage non-government scientists from collaborating with DFO scientists. The downside to that proposition is that it ultimately will have a negative impact on the quality of scientific advice provided to decision-makers and to Canadian society.

Jeff Hutchings, former chair of the Royal Society of Canada and Killam Professor in the faculty of science at Dalhousie University, sees the long shadow of government control — and even of self-censorship by scientists — lurking in the federal government’s new approach.

“The most disconcerting elements to the new policy are that they will apply to all scientific submissions, including those co-authored by non-DFO scientists, and that DFO managers have been given a hammer that they have not previously been able to wield: the withholding of copyright permission to allow for the publication of an article that has been externally peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by a scientific journal.”

Hutchings thinks that this could lead to government scientists, especially younger ones, thinking twice before undertaking certain projects that might displease their managers. Even if never exercised, the mere existence of this new power for DFO managers could suppress scientific ideas, hypotheses, data and conclusions that might raise serious objections to government policy.

The Harper government is well known for its policy-based approach to the facts rather than evidence-based decision making. The classic example was the disbanding of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy because, as Harper cabinet minister John Baird explained at the time, the government didn’t like the advice it was getting.

Nor has the Harper government hesitated to shoehorn scientists into a communications policy that treats them like ministerial office staff.

Where else in the free world do government minders accompany scientists to learned conferences like last year’s international polar conference in Montreal, telling them what they can say and to whom?

Where else is a scientist like Kristi Miller, who makes a research breakthrough, forbidden to talk about it?

And where else on the planet would a government close down a unique and celebrated facility like the ELA to save $2 million a year, while blowing $25 million trying to breathe relevance into a 200 year-old war?

With Edmonton recently under an air-quality warning, tar sands toxins having been found in lakes distant from the project, and water levels dipping in the Great Lakes, it would seem that good science is more important now than ever. Instead, Canadians get bloviating flyweights like Environment Minister Peter Kent declaring that muzzling scientists is established practise.

Which, of course, it is — in Stephen Harper’s Canada, where the specialty is political science.

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.

by YOLANDE GRISÉ, president of the Royal Society of Canada

Scientific advances have shaped modern society, have led to increased health and well-being for Canadians and have played a leading role in forming public policy. The relationship between scientists and the Canadian government is critically important, given the crucial role of science advice in supporting our country’s long-term interests.

The Royal Society of Canada was founded in 1882 by an Act of Parliament because it was understood that public policy and scientific research needed to be in dialogue. Policy and science are in a mutual relationship based on the importance given by government to scientific advice in policy development, and the recognition by scientists that government decisions are made democratically and must take into account evidence beyond that provided by the scientific community.

For this relationship to work, scientists have a responsibility to act ethically and to communicate their findings to the broader community. Science works only when discoveries made in the lab or in the field are communicated and debated, not only to other researchers but to all stakeholders. Governments, in turn, have to respect scientific advice and not impede the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

Scientists and the federal government can be at odds when government policy does not appear to be well-aligned with the best scientific advice. That tension is often constructive: For example, a 2010 report by scientists providing evidence that oil sands activity was polluting the Athabaska River led to several levels of government taking a fresh look at the monitoring practices and activity of the industry in the region.

This relationship is now at risk in Canada. Unreasonable limits are being placed on the ability of government-employed scientists to communicate their findings, whether through publication of their research results or attendance at scientific meetings. These restrictions seem particularly severe in topics related to the environment, where several government scientists have been denied the opportunity to discuss their work.

A well-known case is that of Kristi Miller, a scientist in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. She published research on the Pacific salmon stock in 2010 in the international journal Science but has not been allowed to discuss her work publicly since. The government, in its defence, has affirmed that it needs to control what its employees say, arguing that what they say could be construed as representing the views of the government.

Several scientific organizations, most notably the prominent journals Nature and Science, have raised the alarm and urged the Canadian government to rescind the restrictions.

Such restrictions fly in the face of the government’s own cabinet policy of basing policy decisions on the best science available. Furthermore, they go against the positions taken by countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where scientists are expected to give their advice independently and free of restrictions, whether or not they’re employed by the government.

This disruption in the relationship between scientists and government is avoidable. What’s needed is a policy that clarifies the relationship between scientists, the advice they provide and the federal government. This should lay out the responsibility of the government to solicit and develop the best scientific advice possible in formulating public policy. It should underscore the government’s commitment to advance scientific knowledge and not to hinder its dissemination.

It should also demonstrate the government’s commitment to use scientific advice in policy-making, recognizing the uncertainties that often come with it. It should ensure the independence of scientific advice from government control. And it should reaffirm the responsibility of scientists to conduct their work ethically, to communicate it fairly and to declare their own conflicts of interest. Such a policy will strengthen the role of science in public policy development.

Canada will only succeed as a country if it’s able to harness the best scientific advice to make decisions. The federal government should immediately unshackle government scientists and let them do their jobs. The integrity of evidence-based public policy development is at stake.

The public should be allowed to learn directly from our scientists when they make discoveries in areas of public concern.

Yolande Grisé is president of the Royal Society of 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.