Claire Robinson reports on the Canadian government’s ongoing war against “inconvenient” science

The union that organised a protest against the muzzling of federal scientists in Canada says few federal employees participated because they were scared of the consequences (see articles below).

The Canadian government has a long history of government suppression of its scientists’ concerns. Starting in 1998, three government scientists, Dr Shiv Chopra, Dr Margaret Haydon, and Dr Gerard Lambert, were reprimanded, muzzled and eventually dismissed in 2004 for insubordination for voicing their concerns about the potential health effects of Monsanto’s GM bovine growth hormone cattle drug.

The government’s attitude to these honest scientists was in stark contrast with its attitude to the extraordinary behaviour of the Canadian government scientist Shane Morris. That behaviour included issuing legal threats against GMWatch and GM-Free Ireland when we drew attention to the dubious ethics and utter lack of scientific validity of a study he co-authored, which came to be known as the “wormy corn” paper.

The paper was based on findings from a Canadian farm store where customers were offered a choice of GM or non-GM sweetcorn. The four researchers concluded that 50% more people opted for the GM crop.

However, above the non-GM corn was a sign asking shoppers: "Would you eat wormy sweetcorn?", while above the GM crop was a sign saying, "quality sweetcorn". These blatant attempts to bias the consumers’ choice were not reported in the scientific paper that Morris and his co-authors published on the study.

Morris’s attempts to muzzle our criticisms of his paper backfired, with British MPs and Irish Senators condemning his actions and international scientists demanding that the journal that published the dodgy paper retract it (it didn’t).

But as far as we are aware, the Canadian government turned a blind eye to Morris’s behaviour and never publicly distanced itself from its employee or disciplined him. On the contrary, it has continued to employ him to this day in a series of prominent posts.

Climate of fear around inconvenient findings is global problem

The media articles below make clear there are a number of “hot issues” on which Canadian scientists feel muzzled, including climate change and environmental protection. But the problem is not confined to Canada or to those issues. Scientists from countries across the world have told us that the climate around GM crops and foods is particularly threatening, with many scientists unwilling to even embark on work that may produce findings unwelcome to the GMO crop industry.

If the scientists do manage to carry out the work, their institutions have tried to prevent them speaking to the public and media about their findings on GM crop and food safety. Tactics include:
* smearing the scientists in the media to distance the institution from their inconvenient findings
* collaborating with pro-GMO lobbyists to get a scientist excluded from the institution (this doesn’t necessarily mean firing them; it can mean not renewing their contract or making their working conditions so unpleasant or unrewarding that the scientist “voluntarily” leaves)
* closing or re-allocating entire laboratories where work has been done that is deemed contrary to the interests of corporate sponsors of the institution.

This situation is unsustainable in a democracy. Government scientists are paid by the taxpayer. They must be free to discuss their findings and their implications publicly. But for that to happen, scientists must support unions that take up the cause of their persecuted fellows, regardless of their own personal views on the issues in question. Until there is effective unionised action against persecution and muzzling, it is likely to continue.

Pictures
Top: A 2013 protest in Vancouver against muzzling of scientists (photo: Damien Gillis)
Above: A 2013 protest on Parliament Hill, Ottawa, against the government’s cuts to science and censoring of their work (photo: Bruce Campion-Smith/Toronto Star)

1. “Climate of fear” keeps numbers low at protest by federal scientists: union
2. Scientists want contracts to guarantee they won't be muzzled
3. Canada’s war on “inconvenient science”
—

1. “Climate of fear” keeps numbers low at protest by federal scientists: union

Anais Voski
Ottawa Citizen, 19 May 2015
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/live-scientists-protest-federal-controls-over-publicizing-their-work

A “climate of fear” kept many federal employees from participating in Tuesday’s public protest against the muzzling of scientists, the president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) charged.

The three largest federal unions, including PIPSC, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) and the Canadian Association of Professional Employees (CAPE), organized the protest and said they were expecting hundreds of people.

However, only a few dozen showed up for the lunch-time event outside Tunney’s Pasture.

Debi Daviau, president of PIPSC, said the low turnout was because employees were warned by management not to participate – a charge the government denied.

“Some departments have sent out emails to all employees warning them about the many things they were not entitled to do. They are, however, entitled to participate in a demonstration outside on their lunch hour, but that’s only because they (managers) can’t tell them what to do during their off-hours,” Daviau said.

She said the government’s “climate of fear” scared scientists away from speaking out.

Scott French, a spokesman for Minister of State for Science and Technology Ed Holder, declined comment on whether any employees were warned not to participate, as the union claimed. “I cannot confirm if that took place, I have no knowledge of that,” he said.

Shared Services Canada did send out an email to employees back in March, stating: “At present, none of the bargaining units representing employees in the core public administration are in a legal strike position.

“Employees are free to participate in lawful activities of their employee organization, on their own time,” it said, but noted they were expected to report for work as scheduled “and be present at their prescribed time and place of work.”

Protests Tuesday were also organized in cities across the country, such as Montreal, Quebec City and Vancouver.

PIPSC says that federal scientists cannot speak freely to the news media about their findings and are constrained in their ability to share their research with the public or collaborate with their peers outside government.

It also says government scientists are facing “dramatic” budget cuts in the next two years.

“We’re reaching out to Canadians to make sure that they know about the devastating cuts to these valuable science programs. The work that scientists do directly impacts Canadians’ lives, so it goes well beyond what the public is aware of in terms of the environment,” said Daviau.

As a result, federal unions are now including the issue of “scientific integrity” in ongoing negotiations with the government over a new contract.

Jim Elder, a retiree who showed up at the protest, said the scientists work not just for the government, but for the Canadian people.

“I think it’s very important to formulate policy based on real facts, and these are people we hire to find those facts, which is why I’m concerned when I read reports that they’re being muzzled,” Elder said.

“Scientists actually work for the people of Canada, so I think their job is to tell us, and the media is the best channel to talk to the people.”

The issue of how free government scientists are to speak about their work has been raised many times. A report last October by the non-profit group Evidence for Democracy suggested that Canadian government scientists face considerable restrictions on talking to the media.

But French, the science minister’s spokesman, said “government scientists and experts are readily available to share their research with the media and the public,” and he cited statistics on the number of news media inquiries fielded by agencies and departments last year.

“Overall, Canadian federal departments and agencies produce over 4,000 science publications per year,” he said in an emailed statement. “Canada, meanwhile, is ranked number one in the G-7 for our support for scientific research and development at our colleges, universities and other research institutes.”

Bargaining between the unions and the government has focused on the Conservatives’ plan to revamp sick leave, which has overshadowed other issues the unions are proposing at the bargaining table.

The unions have tried to change the channel by pressing for issues such as bringing integrity back to government science, as well as improving health and wellness in the workplace.

PIPSC’s bargaining demands are aimed at dealing with the ongoing spending cuts in science and “interference” in the integrity of scientific work. Its bargaining proposals are among the first in the scientific community and have attracted attention around the world.


With files from Kathryn May, Ottawa Citizen.
—

2. Scientists want contracts to guarantee they won't be muzzled

Kathryn May
Ottawa Citizen, 19 May 2015
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/scientists-want-contracts-to-guarantee-they-wont-be-muzzled

Canada’s muzzled federal scientists claim they are now being barred from meeting with their union at work to discuss its bargaining proposals to restore “scientific integrity” in government, says the union.

Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, is leading scientists Tuesday in a string of outdoor protests at labs and science-based departments across the country largely because the union can no longer get inside to meet with their members as it once did.

PIPSC came to the table in this current round of collective bargaining with a highly unconventional package of proposals that would embed “scientific integrity” in scientists’ contracts and stop the government from meddling in their work.

Daviau said the union is no longer able to update scientists on these proposals and what’s happening at the bargaining table.

“To add insult to injury, when you make scientific integrity in defence of the public interest your top priority at the bargaining table, the government bars you from meeting to discuss this in your workplace,” said Daviau.

PIPSC said it used to have regular on-site noon meetings at Environment Canada’s Gatineau office, but that long-standing practice has been reversed and the union can’t book a room for meetings with employees. It has been similarly denied access at Environment offices in Burlington and Dorval, National Defence in Montreal, National Research Council in Ottawa and in Tunney’s Pasture, where Health Canada is located.

Treasury Board, however, has insisted there has been no change in policy. It pointed to the existing collective agreement with scientists, which leaves it up to management to decide who can use the premises on a “case by case” basis.

Daviau will be joined at the main protest at Tunney’s Pasture with the leaders of the other large unions, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Canadian Association of Professional Employees, who are also currently at the bargaining table.

The Conservatives’ hard line on revamping sick leave has overshadowed other issues the unions are proposing at the bargaining table. The Conservatives publicly cast this round of bargaining as a push to rein in public service pay and benefits so it is in line with those in the private sector.

The unions have tried to change that channel by pressing for issues such as bringing integrity back to government science, as well as improving health and wellness in the workplace.

PIPSC’s unconventional bargaining demands are aimed at dealing with the ongoing spending cuts in science and “interference” in the integrity of scientific work. Its bargaining proposals are among the first in the scientific community and have attracted attention around the world.

Daviau is trying to throw a spotlight on the state of science in government as she presses the government to stop cutting science jobs and funding to government research, and to ensure decisions are based on evidence rather than ideology.

She also argues the government’s steady erosion of the 18 federal unions’ bargaining rights since 2013 has made it difficult for PIPSC to defend scientific integrity.

PIPSC represents more than 15,000 scientists, researchers and engineers across government. It estimates 7,500 science and research jobs will be cut from science-based departments and agencies by 2017.

Federal scientists were a thorn in the Conservatives’ side during the government’s downsizing, accusing them of using federal policies to muzzle them, change or suppress their findings and undermine their ability to do their jobs.

Specifically, PIPSC wants a policy for Treasury Board and 40 science-based departments and agencies. The union would be consulted in the drafting and the policy would be part of the collective agreements.

The policy would touch on a range of issues and existing policies, but the key proposal is the “right to speak.” The union wants a clause guaranteeing scientists the right to express their personal views while making clear they don’t speak for government.

The other big demand is professional development, allowing scientists to attend meetings, conferences and courses to maintain their professional standards.

They also want contract changes so half of the revenues generated by their inventions and other intellectual property will be plowed back into government research to shore up budgets hit by spending cuts and to attract top talent.

PIPSC argues the changes would ensure science is done in the public interest, information and data are shared, and that scientists can collaborate and be protected from political interference, coercion or pressure to alter data. The policy would touch on a range of issues and existing policies, but the key proposal is the “right to speak.”
—

3. Canada’s war on “inconvenient science”

Alan Emery
Sigma XI, May 12, 2015
https://www.sigmaxi.org/news/keyed-in/post/keyed-in/2015/05/12/canada-s-war-on-inconvenient-science

Science is only threatening when the results are inconvenient to government or special interests.

Canada’s economy has always been primarily extractive, but the current governmental focus is on fossil fuels, especially northern Alberta’s tar (oil) sands, rapid development of which has provided enormous economic benefit to Canada. Scientists noted the pollution, displacement of indigenous peoples, global warming effects, and the effects that will come of plans to situate pipelines across prime aquatic habitats and forest regions. Despite early warning signals, Canada’s present government has relentlessly promoted growth of this valuable resource. At the same time, voices of Canadian government scientists have almost been silenced on climate change, environmental protection and conservation policies or legislation, fossil fuel use, and especially on Canada’s tar sands, Arctic policies, nuclear safety, fisheries, tar sands leaks, even maternal health.

We watched as many large and important governmental research libraries were shuttered. Reports, books, and records were taken to dumps and burned. Advisory councils and positions were eliminated in scientific areas relevant to ecosystems and global warming: circumpolar ambassador; Canadian ambassador for the environment; national science advisor. Advisory councils on science, biotechnology, and technology were consolidated into one council, which now reports only confidentially. We lost Arctic ozone research and monitoring, maintenance of ice core archives, of ocean contaminants, many experimental farms, our marine toxicology program, and so on.

Elimination of the Experimental Lakes Area attracted worldwide attention. It is an internationally renowned freshwater research facility. Fortunately other sponsors stepped in, and it is presently run by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, an NGO.

Canada’s aggressive destruction of such “inconvenient science” has included changes to laws that favour select industries but are destructive scientifically. For example, changes to the Canada Fisheries Act eliminated environmental protection from all aquatic species except those valuable economically, and effectively removed ecosystem-based management of Canadian aquatic resources. A new act removed habitat protection from hundreds of thousands of lakes and rivers.

But “war” on science? There’s no war unless both sides are fighting. Remarkably, science is not fighting back. Instead, we complain about and protest the aggressive destruction of science the government believes is inconvenient to its interests. We took to the streets wearing white lab coats, wrote open letters to politicians, spoke on TV and radio, and reacted on social media. It didn’t work. We can’t fire or muzzle politicians, and we can’t unilaterally take away their funding. So how can science defend itself when it has no power, authority, or even inclination to retaliate in kind?

What would a real war look like if scientists were to fight back? Science needs powerful allies that do have the power to support science and to effect changes in policy and funding. Science must reach out to create allies by proactively developing public discourse that enlightens and enlivens without creating impossibly polarized positions. It is not enough to speak only with students, granting agencies, and university administration. Science may not be the arbiter of social justice, moral values, economic ideals, or spiritual values, but as scientists we can provide solid factual information and informed predictions based on logic and evidence. We can provide realistic risk assessments and “what if” scenarios. We can personally contribute at all levels and in all aspects of decision-making. To do that, we must bring the public into a two-way, even personal conversation about our activities, our hopes, fears, results and their implications. We can ally with science museums, and offer science education on a popular basis to the broad general public from a foundation of research, professional-level interpretation, exhibits, and outreach programs.

Some, but not many scientists are both active and effective with the public. Each time one of us interacts with news media, science has an opportunity to gain allies. But academia has not recognized we should be at war. Instead, the very structure of academia discourages public interactions. Academia rewards formal teaching, refereed technical papers, and internal committee work for hiring, promotion, and tenure. Time spent on outreach subtracts from a professor’s ability to move through the ranks. In fact, academic staff who attempt to reach out to the public are often pilloried by their colleagues, accused of losing touch with real research, or of misrepresenting the principles of science by over-simplifying. If science is to defend itself, it must dramatically restructure to effectively reward those who can and do develop alliances with broad interested and supportive publics.

Fortunately there is a not-so-impossible mechanism to restructure our reward system so that we can effectively fight back. Those folks who sit on hiring committees, judge grant proposals, decree promotion and tenure – they’re not bureaucrats, they are all academics! We can decide that science outreach is vitally important and must become a part of the criteria for hiring, promotion, and granting tenure.

As Pogo wisely told us, “We have seen the enemy and he is us.”


Alan Emery is an emeritus member of the University of Toronto Sigma Xi Chapter. He lives in Ontario, Canada.