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.

An open letter to Environment Canada staff from Deputy Minister Bob Hamilton and Associate Deputy Minister Andrea Lyon says science done at the department has become an “issue…receiv[ing] attention recently,” prompting the letter to provide official “perspective” on the matter.

Throughout 2013 22 per cent of media requests for interviews with scientists were denied while requests in the past five months have increased by 50 per cent, the letter states. In total Environment Canada received just 316 media requests in 2013, of which 246 (78 per cent) were approved.

Climate scientist at the University of Victoria and Green party MLA Andrew Weaver says the fact that Environment Canada is giving such a small amount of interviews is “shameful.”

“If a federal organization, comprising thousands of scientists across the country is giving 246 media interview in a year, that’s not too dissimilar to what I was doing as an individual faculty member at the University of Victoria,” he said. “It’s unbelievable. That’s way down from what it used to be.”

Communication Lockdown

Weaver says media no longer expect to be granted interviews from federal departments like Environment Canada, so overall requests are lower than in previous years.

What is more troubling, says Weaver, are the kinds of interview requests being denied. He said a journalist looking for answers regarding toxicology research in the Lake Athabasca is unlikely to find support at Environment Canada.

“It’s really troubling. It’s essentially message management and we have to realize these scientists are civil servants, they are public servants….They are there working on behalf of the public and the public has a right to the information and the science results that they are actually looking at. And they have a right to an interpretation of those results.”

The Environment Canada message explains media contact with department scientists “needs to be well coordinated” because “issues in the media, including environmental issues, are often complex, have an impact beyond the scope of one person’s work or even one department, and can have important policy implications for the Government.”

The letter goes on to state “the role of a public servant in this context is to provide technical information, not to express personal views or comment on policy issues.”

For Weaver there is a difference between discussing science and voicing one’s opinion on policy and a more effective communications regime wouldn’t try to prevent scientists from doing either. He points to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S.

There is a long history of scientists discussing their research without going into the policy realm implications of their work, he says. To protect the independence and freedom of scientists, groups like NOAA take “the very bold step of saying their scientists can even talk about policy provided that they say these view are my own views, not the views of the government.”

He adds, “in an open and democratic society that is exactly the type of policy we should be aiming for.”

A Pattern of Muzzling

In June 2013, the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre and Democracy Watch released a report cataloguing “systematic efforts by the Government of Canada to obstruct the right of the media – and through them, the Canadian public – to timely access to government scientists.” The 128-page report, entitled "Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy," led to a federal investigation launched by Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault. That investigation is still ongoing.

According to the authors “the report shows that the federal government is preventing the media and the Canadian public from speaking to government scientists for news stories – especially when the scientists’ research or point of view runs counter to current Government policies on matters such as environmental protection, oil sands development, and climate change.”

At the time of the report’s release, UVic’s Environmental Law Centre director Calvin Sandborn said “it’s indefensible to conceal publicly financed government science from the public. Citizens need to know what the facts are so they can decide on critical issues like climate science, the tar sands development and pipelines and all sorts of other issues.”

The message to Environment Canada scientists states the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, which prevents government scientists from speaking to the media without following certain communications protocols, underscores the government’s “responsibility to respond to the interests of Canadians, and of media in our science.”

Yet for Sandborn, these burdensome policies can be what gets in the way of transparent science communication. “Those restrictive policies…indicate a 

clear pattern of political control over anyone talking about science,” he said.

Sandborn also claimed that muzzling doesn’t occur across the board, but tends to coincide with politically unfavourable topics.

“It is interesting to see that topics that require the highest level of ministerial control are topics related to tar sands, climate change, polar bears, caribou and the oil and gas industry. Those are all terms used in federal government politics and on those topics the rules are the strictest. The scientists have to get the highest level of ministerial approval to talk about those topics. I’ll leave it to you to decide whether that’s a coincidence,” he said.

This past fall a report released by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) called “The Big Chill” found 90 per cent of federal scientists felt they were prevented from speaking openly about their work. The study also found 86 per cent felt they would be reprimanded for criticizing departmental decisions they felt detrimental to public interest. 

PIPSC president Gary Corbett told DeSmog Canada that he found the results “very surprising” especially revelations about “the degree of political interference.”

“Right now scientists can’t do the job they were hired to do.”

Here is the full text of the Environment Canada letter: 

Communicating our Science

The issue of the science done at EC and how it is communicated externally has received attention recently and we would like to take this opportunity to provide our perspective on this issue.

Environment Canada (EC) is a science-based department with a history of scientific accomplishment and rigour that is recognized nationally and internationally. We are extremely proud of the excellent work we are doing together as a department, and we appreciate the dedication and expertise of our scientists and of all of our staff.

Every day, staff at EC conduct a wide range of environmental monitoring, research and other scientific activities in fields such as atmospheric sciences, meteorology, physics, biology, chemistry, toxicology, hydrology, ecology, engineering, and informatics. The information and knowledge is used to inform our programs, policies and services. We know that sharing our science is important.

We recognize that we have a responsibility to respond to the interest of Canadians, and of media in our science. The Communications Policy of the Government of Canada underscores this point. Since January 2013, we received 316 media requests for interviews with scientists, 246 (or 78%) of which resulted in completed interviews. Interestingly, we are witnessing an upward trend in the number of media interviews being completed by EC scientists: the average number of scientist media interviews per month for the last five months is 50% higher than in the previous five months.

That said, access by media to departmental officials, including scientists, needs to be well coordinated in the context of a fast-paced 24/7 media environment. Issues in the media, including environmental issues, are often complex, have an impact beyond the scope of one person’s work or even one department, and can have important policy implications for the Government. This is why media outreach is achieved in accordance with the Communications Policy, with which all public servants must comply. While Ministers are clearly the principal spokespersons of the Government, public servants, including scientists, may be designated as spokespeople, typically as an expert on a specific issue. The role of a public servant in this context is to provide technical information, not to express personal views or comment on policy issues.

EC scientists have our support, and the support of the senior management team, in communicating their research through many channels, such as presenting at conferences, publishing in journals, and, with approvals, discussing with the media. Our scientists are encouraged to publish and, in 2012, for example, our scientists published more than 700 articles, a level of productivity that has been relatively constant since 2006.

With one of the largest science programs in the federal government, EC is a national and global-leader in advancing, connecting and applying scientific understanding of the environment to anticipate and address pressing environmental issues.

The strength and credibility of our science helps Canadians to be confident that EC’s policies, regulations, programs and services are based on the best available scientific evidence.

We are proud of the world-class science that we are doing together as a Department, and the services that we provide every day to Canadians. In the context of Blueprint 2020, we will be exploring channels such as webinars to further this discussion. We are committed to hearing your concerns and look forward to working with you to improve how EC science is communicated, both internally and to the public.

Bob Hamilton, Deputy Minister

Andrea Lyon, Associate Deputy Minister

Image Credit: Screenshot from The Big Chill report.

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.