Last year, Canadian scientists and their supporters mourned the “Death of Evidence” in Ottawa. This year, though, they are being asked to stand up and be heard.

On Monday, “Stand Up for Science” rallies will be held in 14 cities across Canada, calling on the federal government to better support science done in the public interest.

“Many of the problems that were impetus of the Death of Evidence rally last year are still there, and if anything, things have continued to get worse,” said Dr. Katie Gibbs, one of the organizers of both Monday's rally and last year's Death of Evidence protest, in an interview with DeSmog. “This rally, we're focusing more on making suggestions for how the government could start to restore public science.”

Those suggestions include: supporting the open communication of publicly funded science to the public; using the best available science and evidence to make the best decisions; and funding scientific research from basic science through to applied.

Scientists have been increasingly critical of the Harper government's stance on publicly-funded research since they came into power in 2006.

By placing burdensome communications restrictions on employees, the Harper government has been criticized of muzzling or censoring scientists unable to openly discuss their research with the public. A movement away from basic forms of data collection – such as the axing of the mandatory long-form census in 2010 – has scientists increasingly concerned about Canada's ability to make evidence-based decisions. 

The result was the “Death of Evidence” rally that gathered 2,000 scientists and supporters in Ottawa last July. Following that success, Gibbs, a biologist, and fellow scientist Dr. Scott Findlay, a professor at the University of Ottawa in the Department of Biology, established Evidence for Democracy, a non-partisan NGO who's goal is to inform the population about the importance of what they call “public interest science.”

Despite what was seen as a successful rally last year, though, Gibbs says the situation has continued to worsen.

Restrictions on the ability of government scientists to speak publicly, for example, have continued to grow, says Gibbs who points to new policies implemented in the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Last winter the DFO instituted new policies requiring scientists to obtain upper-level bureaucratic approval before submitting research for publication in a journal. Gibbs said that this policy goes even further, requiring additional approval once a journal accepts an article for publication. “It's an additional new sign-off that people worry could be used to stifle science that [the government doesn't] want released,” she said.

These policies counter the trend in other countries, such as the US and the UK, where scientists are allowed to speak out against government policy, so long as they preface it by saying that they are not speaking on behalf of the government, said Gibbs.

The ability to speak out is crucial, Findlay told DeSmog, since scientists have a crucial role to play in policy-making. “There is a real place for scientists in political debate and in public policy for the simple reason that all public policy is really just science,” he explained.

Also worsening is the situation around science funding, said Gibbs. While total public funding for science and technology has dropped by 12 per cent in the past four years, according to a recent Statistics Canada report, that isn't Gibbs and Findlay's primary concern. The issue is where the money is going.

Of the $454-million in new research and development funding announced by the federal government for 2013, nearly all of it was slotted for public-private partnerships, in large part for commercialization, wrote Findlay in the National Post last April.

Science and technology funding in increasingly directed away from basic research, where ideas are explored regardless of their profit-making potential. The government's current approach is short-sighted, said Findlay, since cutting funding for basic research will reduce the amount of new ideas that could be marketable in the long-run.

While government actions are of great concern, the primary target for the rally is the public at large, say the organizers.

Their hope is to draw the public's attention to the importance of scientific research for government policy-making, including the social sciences.

Gibbs points to the Conservative government’s decision to implement mandatory minimum sentences in order to reduce crime rates. Reviewing the research on the impact of mandatory minimum sentences in other jurisdictions, she says the clear result is that crime rates do not drop. Adopting mandatory minimum sentences in Canada as a way to reduce crime rates goes against evidence-based decision-making and demonstrates the need to pressure the government to change its approach, said Gibbs.

“I think we've got to restore the health of Canadian science and that we need to take preventative measures, and that will only happen if we convince people of the importance of public interest science,” said Findlay. “I would consider this a success even if the federal government does nothing, if Canadians started to say, 'Oh, I didn't realize that public interest science was so important to me and my welfare.'

“I want people to not only stand up for science, but to actually start to take a bit of ownership of public interest science.”

Information on the Stand Up For Science rallies, taking place across Canada on Monday, Sept. 16, can be found at https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/.

Image Credit: Richard Webster via Death of Evidence.

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 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.