Remember the bad old days when federal scientists were muzzled by the Harper government and, even when health, safety or the environment were threatened, researchers were not allowed to talk about their findings?

A 2013 survey commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) found nine out of 10 scientists did not feel free to speak about their work, and, as public and media indignation grew, Justin Trudeau promised that would change under a Liberal government.

True to his word, after the Liberals swept to power in 2015, the restrictive communications policies of the Harper government were reversed and, in 2016 PIPSC reached a tentative collective agreement with Treasury Board that included clauses recognizing the right of federal scientists to speak about their research and requiring departments with 10 or more scientists to create scientific integrity policies.

But, according to a new survey, that message has not reached some senior public servants who continue to prevent some scientists from talking to media or the public about their work.

The new report released by PIPSC, which represents more than 16,000 federal scientists, engineers and researchers, replicates questions in the initial survey and concludes that, although there has been progress, more work needs to be done to fully remove the muzzle.

The new survey, recently conducted by Environics Research, found that five out of 10 scientists continue to feel they cannot speak freely to the media about the work they do.

Comments from respondents to the survey point more to managers than at government.

“At the mid-management level, things continue as if there had never been an election. I have a director who seems to not have gotten the memo and I am told I am not paid to have opinions and cannot speak in public,” said one respondent.

“There is still a cadre of managers who were very comfortable with the tight rules under the Harper government and are clinging to them,” said another.

In the new survey, 20 per cent of respondents said they were prevented by public relations staff or management from answering a question within their area of expertise.

Also, 40 per cent continue to believe that political interference has compromised the ability to develop policies based on scientific evidence, down from 71 per cent in 2013.

Twenty-nine per cent said they were aware of cases where their agency had suppressed or declined to release information, leading to a incomplete or inaccurate public understanding of the issue – down from 48 per cent in 2013.

The new survey, recently conducted by Environics Research, found that five out of 10 scientists continue to feel they cannot speak freely to the media about the work they do. #scicomm https://t.co/MCcSyBQxpe

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 25, 2018

PIPSC president Debi Daviau said there has been progress, but more needs to be done.

“What these survey results show is that the process of removing the chill imposed on federal scientists under the last government will take longer and require more deliberate efforts on the part of both the government and the public service to succeed,” Daviau said in a news release.

“We believe that should include efforts to strengthen whistle-blowing laws so that federal scientists don’t have to to risk sacrificing their careers in order to warn about concerns in the public interest.”

The survey found that 89 per cent of respondents believe whistle-blowing laws should be strengthened – a figure unchanged from 2013.

Daviau said it is now more important than ever that Canada set the right example for government science “given everything we see happening to federal science in the United States.”

In addition to enhanced whistle-blowing protection, PIPSC is recommending that all communications policies be reviewed to ensure the right to speak is included and that annual reminders of the policies be sent annually to staff and management.

Other recommendations include:

• Asking Chief Science Advisor Mona Nemer to develop concrete steps for government to include public science evidence in decision-making.
• Joint staff and management training sessions promoting the right to speak.
• Priority given to development of scientific integrity policies.
• Promote public access and dialogue by holding open houses showcasing the work of federal scientists.

Federal Science Minister Kirsty Duncan was not available to comment by time of publication.

The survey results are considered accurate plus or minus 1.8 per cent 19 times out of 20.

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 federal scientists have won the right to speak freely about their research and science without upper level bureaucratic control, a feature central to restrictive communications protocols under the Harper government.

The move to officially unmuzzle scientists comes after the Professional Institute of Public Service Canada (PIPSC), Canada’s largest union federal employees including 15,000 scientists, researchers and engineers, negotiated to include scientists’ right to speak in a collective agreement deal.

“This is an enormous win not only for federal scientists but for all Canadians,” PIPSC President Debi Daviau said in a statement.

“Following the defeat last year of the Harper government, we vowed that no government should ever again silence science. This new provision will help ensure that remains the case now and in the future.”

A memorandum of agreement contained in new member agreements states employees “shall have the right to express themselves on science and their research, with respecting the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector adopted on April 2, 2012, without being designated as an official media spokesperson.”

The language was agreed to in a tentative deal with the federal government, but Daviau said she expected it to be adopted by other federal agencies like the National Research Council, Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in future negotiations.

Under the former Conservative government scientists were unable to speak with media or members of the public without first gaining approval of departmental superiors, a procedure that opened even basic interview requests up to political interference and message control.

In 2013, PIPSC released a report that found 86 per cent of federal scientists surveyed believed they could not inform the public about a departmental decision that could harm the environment or public health and safety without fear of reprisal.

Scientists also reported being unable to provide basic answers related to their research on topics as uncontroversial as snowfall pattern.

As DeSmog Canada has previously reported, media requests on potentially controversial topics like the oilsands or marine contamination were subject to significant departmental oversight. Scientists were often denied the right to give interviews or were chaperoned by bureaucratic ‘minders’ who limited interviews to pre-determined topics.

Information requests were often responded to by communications staff rather than scientists, even if the subject matter pertained to an expert federal scientist’s own research and even when that scientist was media trained.

Kathleen Walsh, executive director of Evidence for Democracy, a science advocacy group launched in 2012 to improve scientific integrity in Canada described the new policy as historic.

“We haven’t seen anything like this before,” she said. “It’s a pretty big win for Canadian scientists and Canadians.”

“In an era of post-truth and fake news I think it’s really important for Canadians to know they are hearing from experts and scientists without political interference on their research or their findings.”

Federal Scientists Officially Unmuzzled in New Collective Agreement with Federal Government https://t.co/S3xPuglyJE #cdnpoli #cdnsci

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 13, 2016

In March, Evidence for Democracy sent an open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Minister of Information, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains and Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan, calling on the government to free federal scientists and researchers to pursue public-interest science.

Over 5,500 Canadians signed the open letter, which also called on the government to enshrine scientists’ right to speak in collective agreements.

The new language will make it harder for current and future governments to interfere with scientific communication.

“But the right to speak is only one part of scientific integrity,” Walsh added. “There are a number of things the federal government can do to bolster science integrity in federal science…like ensuring federal science is free from undue corporate influence…and ensuring there is whistleblower protection.”

“It’s not just about how federal science is created or communicated but also how it’s used,” Walsh said.

Canada recently announced the creation of a Chief Science Advisor position and is currently conducting a review of Canada’s federal environment assessment act — two moves Walsh sees as promising.

“I’m cautiously hopeful,” Walsh said.

Giving scientists the ability to freely communicate is also seen as a strong step in the right direction.

“Governments and government policies come and go, but the right of Canadians to unbiased scientific information from their own scientists should survive both,” Daviau said.

“At a time when the United States is at renewed risk of turning its back on science and evidence-based public policy, it is essential that government scientists in Canada and other countries be assured safeguards that protect their right to speak and the public’s right to know.”

Image: Stand up for science rally in Vancouver, 2013. Photo: 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.

It already feels like a long time ago.   Remember way, way back when Canada’s federal scientists were shackled to their laboratory tables, unable to speak out or walk freely in the light of day?   I don’t mean to sound trivial; the war on science in Canada was real and severe in its implications and in some places devastating in its consequences.   But looking back on what Canadians are calling the ‘dark decade’ already feels ridiculous somehow, like it’s a caricature of our past reality. How did things get so bad?   That’s something the scientific community at large is asking itself, in a serious attempt to prevent ideology-driven, anti-science policies from taking root once again.   “Science should never be silenced again,” Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), a union representing more than 15,000 federal scientists, said in a statement released Wednesday.

PIPSC, as well as the science-advocacy group Evidence for Democracy (E4D), released an open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as well as ­to science ministers Kirsty Duncan and Navdeep Bains, requesting policies be put in place to protect the scientific integrity of Canada’s public employees.   (Full disclosure: I recently became a volunteer member of Evidence for Democracy's board of directors.)   The two groups say they commend the Liberal government for restoring the mandatory long-form census in Canada as well as lifting strict communications procedures that prevented federal scientists from speaking to the media or the public without upper level bureaucratic oversight.   In the joint letter released today, the groups are calling on the government to take their effort to restore scientific integrity in Canada a step further.   “The government clearly supports science integrity — now we need them to safeguard it from future attacks,” Katie Gibbs, executive director of E4D, said.

“Creating strong science integrity policies in all federal science-based departments will go a long way to ensuring that critically important government research is available to the public and used in policy development.”

The letter also requests scientific integrity provisions be added to collective bargaining agreements, to ensure federal employees have an enshrined right to work and communicate freely without fear of censure.

According to Daviau, having clear rules in place for scientists is critical for the restoration of scientific integrity at the federal level.

“By including the right of scientists to speak in collective agreements we can ensure there exists a consistent policy and a binding process to resolve disputes as well as prevent in future the kind of chill imposed by communications policies under the Harper government,” she said.   The open letter comes just one day after the release of a report from the Institute for Research on Public Policy and the Canadian Academy of Engineering that calls for the better use of science in the creation of public policy.   “As governments grapple with evermore complex policy problems, science and technology must play a bigger role in providing an evidence base for decisions and supporting government efforts to manage risk and uncertainty,” Pierre Lortie, president of the Canadian Academy of Engineering, said in a release.   The report calls on the Liberal government to foster informed debate by making research used in decision-making more readily available to the public, to strengthen internal decision-making policy, establish a national science advisory board and build bridges between parliamentarians and the scientific community.   Graham Fox, president of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, notes scientific evidence is meant to play a role in decisions, but that other factors are always taken into consideration.   “Of course, evidence should weigh heavily in the balance, but it will not necessarily replace or trump budget considerations, citizens’ concerns, campaign commitments and other considerations,” Fox said.   “The challenge is not to remove politics from decision-making, but rather to create an en­vironment in which the public debate is appropriately informed by science.”

Image: PMO 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.

They say the truth will set you free. But sometimes all it takes is retirement.

That’s the case for Steve Campana, a former federal scientist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who is using his retirement as an opportunity to speak openly about the federal government’s policies and the damage Prime Minister Stephen Harper has caused to public interest science.

“I am concerned about the bigger policy issues that are essentially leading to a death spiral for government science,” Campana told the CBC.

He said federal scientists work in a climate a fear.

“I see that is going to be a huge problem in coming years,” he said. “We are at the point where the vast majority of our senior scientists are in the process of leaving now disgusted as I am with the way things have gone, and I don’t think there is any way for it to be recovered.”

This week, three of Canada’s largest unions rallied in Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City and Vancouver to protest the muzzling of scientists.

Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), which represents 55,000 public sector employees including 15,000 scientists, said the federal government “has no respect whatsoever for Canada’s public scientists.”

“Right now our scientists are constrained in their ability to share their research and collaborate with their peers. They’re frequently ‘missing in action’ at international conferences. They can’t speak freely to the media and the public about their work,” she said.

“These are all essential elements of performing science in the public interest and that’s how you protect our country’s environment and the health and safety of Canadians.”

According to PIPSC, by 2017 the federal government will cut over $2.6 billion from science programs and eliminate an estimated 7,500 positions from 10 major science-based departments. These cuts are expected to run deep in departments already dealing with several years of funding drawbacks.

A traditionally nonpartisan and apolitical union, PIPSC has publicly vowed to make the crisis of science in Canada a federal election issue.

PIPSC recently proposed revisions to its collective agreement, which would guarantee the right for scientists to speak about their work, as long as they clarify “they are speaking in their personal capacity and not on behalf of the Government of Canada.”

“Our members, more than anyone, acknowledge that there are issues and areas where there should be limitations,” Peter Bleyer, union consultant for PIPSC, told Global News.

“But other countries, like the U.S., have established policies to distinguish between when you’re talking on behalf of the government and when you’re talking for yourself and they do just fine.”

Bleyer said more independence is needed for Canada’s scientists and their right to that independence should be enshrined in employment agreements.

He told the CBC there are many stories of frustrated federal scientists.

"It has clearly gotten worse. There is very clear evidence of that. The problem is that it has created an atmosphere that affects not only those who are directly affected, but all of those who hear about it understand what is going on around them. That's what we call, very clearly, a chilling effect."

Campana said he thinks the chill effect is the result of the federal government’s desire for communications control.

"It's hard to fathom. It seems to be simply a control issue. You could sort of understand the rationale if you were potentially talking about a controversial subject and whoever is in government quite rightly has the right to make sure there are no critical statements about policy. But when you go to the extent of silencing just talking about facts, that just doesn't make any sense."

He added this could have serious implications for the public.

"If we don't have the system in place to deal with it, there is going to be some problem that happens in the next few years. I don't know, rising tide levels or tsunami coming in or an invasion of great white sharks, where people are concerned about what's going to happen, and we won't have the qualified people in place to answer those questions at all.

"You can't have those people in place overnight. It takes years, almost decades, to develop that capacity."

Image Credit: Tanya Stemberger

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.

In an absolutely unprecedented move Canada’s Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) announced it will engage in political activity in the lead-up to and during the next federal election.

“Extraordinary times call for extraordinary actions,” PIPSC president Debi Daviau said in a press release.

“This government has forced non-partisan organizations such as ours to make a very difficult choice: to remain silent or to speak out. We have chosen to speak out,” added Daviau.

PIPSC, Canada’s largest union of federal government scientists and professionals, represents some 55,000 public sector employees across the country.

The organization says the Harper government’s harsh treatment of union employees is damaging the public sector and the nation’s democracy.

In a recent annual general meeting the group pledged to “take all necessary action to ensure that Canadians are aware of what is at stake in federal public service collective bargaining.”

The group also agreed to “energetically defend and promote federal public services and expose the damage this Conservative government has done to these.”

In addition, the organization is preparing for potential “job action.”

“This government is driving our members down the path to job action,” Daviau said.

“It has launched an unprecedented assault on unions, and other democratically elected organizations in this country. It has cut thousands of federal public service jobs, programs and services. It has targeted, through bills such as C-377, C-525 and last year’s C-4, the very existence of unions and collective bargaining.”

In 2013 PIPSC released a study called The Big Chill that revealed the degree to which federal researchers and scientists were prevented from speaking about their work under the Harper government’s strict communications protocols.

Ninety per cent of federal scientists said they were prevented from speaking freely to the media about their work. Eighty-six per cent said they feared reprimand if they were to speak out against a department decision they found to go against public interest.

In addition, 50 per cent of respondents said they were aware of political interference in the communication of scientific research to the public.

“Canadians deserve to know the damage this government is inflicting – unnecessarily and often underhandedly – to their services, programs and even to their democracy,” concluded Daviau.

Image Credit: Prime Minister Stephen Harper 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.

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.

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.

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.