This is a guest post by Scott Findlay, an Associate Professor of Biology, a member of the Institute for Science, Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa, and cofounder of the new national advocacy organization, Evidence for Democracy. 

Re: “Muzzling government scientists?” by Philip Cross, June 14

Philip Cross, former Chief Economic Analyst at Statistics Canada, repudiates the claim that government scientists are being muzzled. What is his evidence?

In contrast to Mr. Cross’s assertion, concerns about muzzling have been voiced by academic institutions like the Canadian Association of University Teachers, writers associations like the Canadian Science Writers Association, and scientific organizations like the Royal Society of Canada. And even if these other institutions were not involved, would the bringing of the muzzling charge by an “advocacy” organization in itself undermine the case?

Of course not — all parties in judicial undertakings are partisan by definition. What matters in court is not who brings the case, but the evidence adduced to support the case so brought.

Mr. Cross’s argument is that government scientists can publish (anonymously) their opinions elsewhere; therefore they are not being muzzled. Surely Mr. Cross would agree that an opinion rendered on economic issues by, say, the former Chief Economic Analyst at StatCan, is, on average, likely to be more informed — and considered more informed by the public — than that of the proverbial man (or woman) on the Clapham omnibus.

If not, then why didn’t Mr. Cross publish his piece anonymously? If scientists are obliged to express their opinion anonymously in the electronic ether, isn’t this evidence for, rather than against, institutional muzzling?

Mr. Cross’ argument is: (a) government scientists are government employees; (b) government employees are paid to support the government; (c) disseminating scientific information inconsistent with government policy is not supporting the government; (d) therefore government scientists shouldn’t be allowed to do it.

Many would take issue with the premise that government employees are paid to support the government.

They would argue that as public servants government scientists are, well, servants of the public, not the government.

Thomas Jefferson — among others — noted that democracy depends critically upon an informed public. An informed opinion requires considering all the evidence relevant to the issue at hand. To be considered, evidence must be available. Prime Minister Harper has repeatedly asserted his support for both an informed public and evidence-based decision-making. Doesn’t this mean that evidence collected by government scientists (on the public dime, no less) should be available to the public, in unfiltered form, unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise?

But whether one agrees with these arguments, one thing is clear. Mr. Cross has committed what the Scottish philosopher David Hume referred to (yes, in 1739) as the “is-ought fallacy.”

Mr. Cross’ arguments principally concern the ought question, namely, whether it is reasonable — perhaps even salutary — that government scientists be “muzzled.” This is an important question, but not the one at hand.

Rather, the issue before Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault is: are government scientists being muzzled? On this issue, Mr. Cross has adduced no evidence whatsoever.

This article originally appeared in the Financial Post.

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.