Should we give Harper what he wants?

A shift in the focus at NRC to strictly industry-based investigation. Misrepresentation of facts as to how scientific research is conducted by Government Ministers, requiring correction for the public record. Release of a “National Household Survey” with data so questionable and reporting so poor that Stats Canada won’t even release some of the results they did get (and yet somehow, we have a handle on how many Jedis reside in Canada). Laying off even more scientists and researchers at Agriculture Canada. Putting out notice that science in the arctic is about to change, “to make sure science is relevant” as the new chair of the Arctic Council, Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative Minister of Health for the Canadian Government. And all this just in the past couple of weeks.

You can add to this heap the myriad of cuts to science in this country, outlined so well here, science jobs cut across the board in government departments, and the ongoing pile of rules and regulations which limit our effectiveness as federal scientists that I’ve outlined on this blog.

Someone looking at all this might conclude that the Harper Government doesn’t really appreciate science, particularly the science that his own public service generates.

So I’ll pose the question: what if we gave Harper what he seems to want? That is, provide a demonstration of what the public service might look like without science.

Government scientists are a unionized bunch. We have a union that is supposed to support us when there is an indication that our employers are negatively impacting our ability to work efficiently and effectively. If there was a health and safety concern at my office, restricting me from doing work in my lab, and my employer (the government) refused to do anything about it, I could turn to the union who would support my refusal to work in unsafe conditions.

It may not be risking my life, but I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that my employer is limiting my ability to effectively do my job. I require permission to seek the funding that supports my research, even before I apply for it, therefore limiting my ability to do said research. I require a manager to sign off on the papers I’ve written based on the research I’ve conducted on behalf of the crown, which has the potential to limit my ability to communicate the research I’ve conducted. I require levels upon levels of approval to hire even summer students to help me conduct my research (paid for by the funds I’ve secured), and frequently can only hire someone months after I needed them to begin initially. I work in an environment where I am actively discouraged from communicating my work to the public without expressed permission. And the more layoffs come, the more the remaining scientists are getting leaned on to pick up the slack and do the jobs of all the people who are gone in addition to their own responsibilities. I complain to my superiors about all of this, and all I hear is “this isn’t my fault, it comes from… [insert scapegoat here, including Minister's office, Treasury Board, etc...]“.

So, here’s my proposal- if we as government scientists can’t effectively do our job, then perhaps job action is required. The Harper government doesn’t want science? Fine. Let’s see how well they do without us, and how they deal with the media circus around their own government scientists refusing to work under the current dysfunctional climate.

I am proposing that government scientists (myself included) should go on strike. PIPSC is our union. The RE group, to which we belong, has their annual general meeting June 1st, 2013. I think this should be a topic of discussion at that meeting. I’d like the Union to seek the input from its members on this, or provide some thoughts as to why this is untenable.

If not a strike, then some coordinated job action- work to rule. Refuse to participate in all those off-hand consultations that we do for the department just because we’re nice people. Walk outs. Coordinated protests. Let the media feast on government scientists in lab coats picketing right outside their government offices. We can’t talk, so our union reps can do the talking.

I’d welcome any feedback here on the topic.

I’ll say right now that this would likely be a tough sell- research scientists are deeply committed bunch to the work they do. But I am having a hard time imagining how we can expect things to get anything but worse given the direction things are going, and I don’t see how we as government scientists can sit by and watch this happen anymore. This is a majority government who we’re stuck with for at least two more years. Given their track record, I’m legitimately worried about how much more damage this bull will do in the china shop before someone finally shows them the door.

My first ever post on this site was a response to Andrew Weaver (climate scientist, and newly minted MLA in the British Columbia Legislature) that government scientists should rise up. In it, I outlined why this was a challenging thing to ask. As a single person, there is much to lose. But if we have the support of our union, there is strength in numbers.

The academic scientific community in Canada and the world has taken a stand and voiced their objections. Perhaps it’s time government scientists do the same.

How bad is it in other government departments?

A while ago now I presented the recent changes to the publication approval procedures in the Central and Arctic region of DFO, which has received a fair amount of attention in the media- collaborators are getting panicky about what this means to them reporting their work in a timely fashion, and many are wondering what it means for us as government scientists actually being able to report our findings in the scientific literature (let alone communicate it to the public).

It’s got me wondering what the situation is like elsewhere- is it the case that no one had noticed how relaxed things were in this particular region, and now we’re being brought into line with other regions? How does this process work in Pacific region? Maritimes? What about other government departments- Environment Canada, Parks Canada, Natural Resources Canada, National Defense- what are your publication procedures like? Are they worse than what we’re experiencing? Not as bad?

I would appreciate any insights as comments below- I’ll remind everyone that the identifying fields are not required to leave a comment here, you can do so safely anonymously.

The best I can do so far is some (unconfirmed) rumors I had heard swirling about that one office in Environment Canada where no one was in a director position to sign off on any publications- due to retirement of that person or something- that this situation left no mechanism to obtain approval from anywhere else, and that this was holding up all kinds of work from coming out, until someone else was in the position permanently. This seems totally outlandish, so I’m hoping someone can give me the actual story.

Silence of the science

A couple of articles have come out recently that I absolutely felt the need to share- anyone reading this blog has probably already seen them, but I figured I’d better highlight them just in case.

The first is a series of articles coming out of the Huffington Post, collectively called “stifling science” by Melissa Mancini. It’s very well-researched and hits all the major points on the issues.

The central page is not that simple to navigate to find parts 1-4, so I’ve summarized them here:

Part 1: A Cry for science in Canada

Part 2: How science stopped at the top of the world

Part 3: How Tories control the science message

Part 4: Science Cuts: Ottawa Views Pure Science As ‘Cash Cow,’ Critics Say

One line in part 3 really caught my eye:

“The Department of Fisheries and Oceans put out 128 news releases in 2012, compared with 243 in 2005, a decrease of 47 per cent.”

Pretty brutal. To be fair, perhaps we should know what the stats are in the intervening years and whether 2005 is consistent with previous years under the Liberal government- however, the consistency with the patterns between DFO and the other three science-based departments suggests this is not some artefact of a difference between two randomly selected years; rather, it would appear that access to federal scientists has become more restrictive under the current ruling party.

The second is an article by Jonathon Gatehouse in Maclean’s magazine, entitled “When science goes silent“. I particularly liked the following passage:

“To call the current environment ‘dysfunctional’ would not be overstating things,” one federal scientist, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions, told Maclean’s. “Your bosses are only ever following marching orders, so people are made to feel that there’s no use in complaining because we are so far away from the level at which decisions are made that there’s no hope our concerns will ever make it anywhere.”

Okay, that’s not (by far) the best quote in the piece, but let’s just say I’m partial to it.

The article is very comprehensive, and very much worth the read.

It would seem that Suzanne Legault will have her hands full over the next few months; I look very much forward to her findings.

This is public consultation?

When browsing twitter last week, I came across the following post:

That’s right- DFO is seeking public consultation on (some of) the changes to the Fisheries Act. For those interested, the link to the changes (and instructions on how to comment- there’s a process, not surprisingly) is here:

http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-04-13/html/reg1-eng.html#reg

Great, consultation. This is a good thing. So, I thought I’d check the DFO website to see where it was advertizing the fact that it was looking for consultation:

Hmm- nope, just Economic Action Plan ads. Okay, it must be under the news section- the notice for publication was made on April 13th, so there’s probably a news release to let people know that it’s available for comment:

Okay, nothing there for April 13th, and no earlier announcements (you can check the site yourself to verify: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/news-presse-eng.htm).

Maybe an oversight then. Surely, it’s on the DFO twitter feed- after all, this is what social media is for, right? Interaction and engagement with an audience. Let’s see:

Hunh. So all this news clearly overwhelmed DFO’s communication staff around the 13th of April, and besides, it’s only asking for public consultation on the Fisheries Act, which essentially guides how the department operates on a day-to-day basis. Nothing as important as talking about how to age cod.

Hold on- let’s go back to the Gazette page for a second:

“Fisheries and Oceans Canada is communicating with stakeholders to raise awareness of this regulatory proposal and to inform stakeholders of the comment period afforded through prepublication of the proposed Regulations in Part Ⅰ of the Canada Gazette. Potential revisions to the proposed Regulations will be made based on comments received during the 30-day comment period.”

Oh- I see. Publication in the Gazette IS the notification. Because everyone I know reads the Canada Gazette regularly (clearly, it’s something we should probably be doing more often). Interestingly, there’s all kinds of amendments where consultation is currently being sought, by the Department of Environment, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and Parks Canada, to name a few.

Okay, so if you’re interested in making comments, note the following (also from the Canada Gazette page):

“Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice [April 13, 2013]. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Ray O’Flaherty, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6 (tel.: 613-993-0982; fax: 613-993-5204; email: FPR-RPP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca).”

So, if you don’t cite the Canada Gazetter, the date of publication, AND address it to Ray, they have every right to toss your comments in the trash. Be warned.

And in case you’re not going to read all these particular posted changes, the main issue they are seeking consultation on is review times for proponents who are undergoing “development” that has the potential to be harmful to fish. The proposed timelines are 60 days to notify the proponent that their application is complete and no additional information is required, and then 90 days from the time of notification that applications are complete to either authorize or refuse the proposed work. 5 months total. That should be pretty simple, since the department just cut 130 positions from the habitat program (the folks doing these reviews) and plans to absorb another $100 million in cuts over the next 3 years. This, despite recent work showing that review times on habitat authorizations weren’t taking very long before these changes.

If you think these proposed timelines are as fishy as they sound, I would encourage you to submit your comments to Mr. O’Flaherty.

And take note- you may need to actually work really hard as a member of the public to find out you’re being consulted with by the current government.

One order of Government policy, hold the science

Perhaps not surprisingly, it’s scientists that have shown that the emperor has no clothes. A recent U of T study has shown that Government justification for new environmental legislation is unfounded.

In a recent post, I discussed a paper by Jake Rice (DFO scientist) that outlined the role of science in contributing to government policy. In it, he warns of the risks of making policy that ignores science advice. The details are in the post, but the basic idea is that if you want to form policy that ignores science, expect to be called out on it.

That’s exactly what’s happened this week in a paper published by researchers from the University of Toronto. But first, some back story for context.

When the government released sweeping changes to environmental legislation in bill C-38 last year, particularly, changes to the Fisheries Act and totally re-writing the Environmental Assessment Act, the excuse used to do so was that environmental reviews took too long- so long that investors were frustrated with the process and choosing to seek development elsewhere. Government ministers, like Joe Oliver, spoke at length to give this impression- environmental reviews were lengthy and cumbersome. To quote ol’ Joe, from a development approval announcement in 2011:

“I think the regulatory process should be completed within a reasonable amount of time and that time should be a couple of years.” – Joe Oliver, Federal Minister of Natural Resources

The quote appeared relevant for the particular announcement, which had taken quite a bit longer (6 years in that particular case). However, the way the “need” for a change in the approval process was being sold was that this was the norm- why would anyone invest if it takes 6 years to approve a project? Industry complaints repeated frequently in the media that the approval process was too lengthy helped solidify the impression- environmental review was slow and cumbersome, and limiting investment. And, the government presented their own “data” on the topic- see the handful of anecdotal examples presented on page 89 of this document and in this committee report.

What wasn’t clear at the time was that these were just “impressions”- no one had actually measured how long environmental reviews actually took; that is, look at all the data on time to review and ask what the actual time to approval was. Instead, the government took industry’s word for it, and, based on a few examples, completely overhauled environmental legislation across the board, with the goal of reducing environmental review times to between 1-2 years.

In their recent study, Dak de Kerckhove, a PhD candidate in U of T’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, along with faculty members Dr. Brian Shuter and Dr. Ken Minns (a retired DFO scientist) demonstrated from a review of actual data on environmental reviews between 2001 and 2011 found that:

“The majority of submissions were processed within 1 year for mitigated impacts and within 2 years for authorized impacts.”

Exactly the targets that ol’ Joe said the changes were supposed to put in place.

To review: the Canadian government made sweeping changes to environmental legislation based on industry complaints (not a scientific examination of the data), in order to set targets for review times that it was already meeting under the old legislation.

That’s what you get when you base policy on impressions instead of evidence.

Further, the authors provide some evidence that these times were shorter than similar reviews in the US, which take between 3-8 years (though the authors are quick to point out that data with which to compare are sparse). They then go on to make some recommendations for how to streamline the process without weakening environmental oversight.

To conclude, the authors make two key statements:

1. “Inordinately long review times may be a misperception based on a minority of cases, and thus the recent environmental policy changes in Canada may have little effect on the pace of economic growth.”

And,

2. “While our study provides the first estimate of review times with publically available data, we encourage the federal government to refine our estimate with the more detailed information of individual referrals at their disposal and use a strong evidence-based approach when designing federal environmental policy.”

What else can I say when they’ve already said it all.

I invite you to read the paper yourself (it’s open access, just click on the .pdf link) and check out the press release. You can also hear the U of T student speak for himself on CBC’s “As It Happens”, broadcast April 3rd 2013.

And here I thought it was just me…

I’m pleased to say that I’ve received my first comment from another public servant. The names have been changed for anonymity. Thank you “Larry” for your contribution.

Comment: Hi there. Great work. Not all scientists can write in a style accessible to the general public. Jeff Hutchings has put out some good editorials on this topic, one recently in the Toronto Star. This muzzling of scientists business is bad news. It takes forever to get research published as it is…you have to compete for funding, apply for permits, do the study (often with several field seasons), analyze data, write it up, submit to a journal, wait for the review, do the revisions, resubmit, and so on. And now add another very uncertain timeline of an internal government “review”? Without needing to exaggerate, this added step will add many more months if not years – with the risk that approval may be denied at the end. Who in their right mind will want to collaborate with a DFO researcher now? I suppose that’s the point…

Another form of government muzzling that is taking place is the mass demotions of regulatory staff across the country. Basically making it so very few people will be at a level of authority to speak at public forums or make regulatory decisions, particularly on big development proposals like mines or pipelines. 

Anyway, I was sent your blog from a buddy in academia. Everyone involved with science is disturbed by the state of things – as they should be.

Keep on fighting the good fight.

Thanks. Larry

Canadian Government votes against… Science

Our fearless leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, voting “No” to science in this country.

It’s one of those things that you wish you hadn’t seen- like a terrible car crash that you drive past.

Today, our members of parliament debated a motion put forward by NDP Science and Technology critic, Kennedy Stewart. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House,

a) public science, basic research, and the free and open exchange of scientific information are essential to evidence-based policy-making;

b) federal government scientists must be enabled to discuss openly their findings with their colleagues and the public;

c) the government should maintain support for its basic scientific capacity across Canada, including immediately extending funding, until a new operator is found, to the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area Research Facility to pursue its unique research program.

The governing conservative party cheered as they defeated the motion, 157 against to 137 for. That’s right- a majority of our parliamentarians, every single one of them conservative, voted against this motion. Want to see how your MP voted? You can find out here. Maybe they would like to explain to you why they voted the way they did.

So let’s review exactly what it is that our government does not support.

A. They do NOT support scientific evidence to inform government policy. Perhaps not surprising, seeing as how the recent changes to environmental legislation in this country were clearly made without seeking out scientific advice.

B. They do NOT support federal government scientists (people like me) discussing our scientific research with the public or our colleagues. We’re already forced to go through enourmous rigamarole (I believe that’s the technical term) to talk to the media, or present our work at a scientific conference. Clearly, that wasn’t enough, so they made publishing our scientific work more difficult: we now need to seek approval from a Division Manager to first submit the paper, as well as to sign off on copyright release.

C. This is a bit of a two-parter. First, they do NOT believe in maintaining support for basic scientific capacity across Canada. All government departments have seen a reduction in their science capacity with the cutbacks that have rolled out over the past two years, though the government still hasn’t admitted it publicly. Gary Goodyear claims that investments in science and technology have increased over their time in power, but there seems to be some debate about those numbers. According to Kennedy Stewart, Stats Canada numbers that suggest that investment in Science and Technology has actually fallen by about 1 Billion dollars annually since the 2010-2011 fiscal year (I’d love to post the numbers if Kennedy reads this and can point me to them- I can be reached on my comment page).

The second part, is that the government does NOT support extending funding for the Experimental Lakes Area until a new operator has been found. Again, not surprising, given that they started tearing cabins apart last week and informed non-government scientists this week that they would not be allowed on-site to conduct their research- federally funded research.

This government says it invests in science, but makes it crystal clear in its actions that it’s not the least bit concerned with it. As they say, actions speak louder than words.

UPDATE (21 March 2013): In response to Burinsmith and Ivankaram that my title is over the top… it’s based on the picture. The topic of the vote, according to CPAC which broadcast it yesterday, was “Science”. The following tweet inspired the post:

I was always told, even in the science world, that you want a catchy title. Looks like I’m getting alot of traffic on this post, from folks with a variety of viewpoints. Hopefully my post can contribute to constructive discussions around the issue outside of my choice of title.

Ignore the science, poison the well

Jake Rice, DFO scientist, author of “Advocacy science and fisheries decision-making”, published 6 months before Bill C-38 was tabled. Would he be “approved” to publish this if it were submitted today?

Not too long ago, Steve Cooke, a fisheries ecologist and Associate Professor at Carleton University, posted an interesting paper by Jake Rice on his twitter account. Jake is also a government scientist, and recently published a paper in the ICES Journal of Marine Science entitled “Advocacy science and fisheries decision-making”. It’s worth a read if you have the time (note: watch for the operatic references on page 3).

In his paper, Jake argues strongly for keeping science objective, and not letting it be perverted by other motives. With some real-world examples, he argues that science should be presented as a means for policy makers to make decisions, vs. having science cherry-picked or analyzed in a certain manner to support a specific policy outcome.

It’s a perspective I agree with, which I’ll try to articulate within the context of the paper, e.g., in fisheries science. More than the science about the ecosystem being fished goes into policy; there are social issues, economies, politics, etc, which are the purview of special interests. However, the social issues and economies are often intimately tied to the sustainability of the ecosystem (and therefore the fishery). Further, Jake argues that in the milieu of all these special interests, the science advice has a special role in the shaping of policy, as it’s objective, and not driven by the interests of one group or another. I’ll quote a bit of the paper here to try and illustrate the point:

“With hundreds of partisan documents being submitted on major decisions, policy-makers have to make choices that please some interests more than others. Which interests are chosen to please and which to upset is a test of political instinct, with short-term political risks knowingly taken when a decision is made. If the decision-maker chooses options that are inconsistent with the science advice, however, it is the wisdom and judgement of the decision-maker that is questioned. Challenges come from all quarters and persist long after the decision, as demands for accountability continue 20 years after the key decisions on Canadian Atlantic groundfish stocks. This standard of accountability for not heeding science advice means that from hundreds of documents that may be on a decision-makers desk, the science advice is always up front, and responsible decision-makers always read that advice carefully.”

This paper was published in the fall of 2011, almost exactly 6 months before we knew what the sweeping changes contained in bill C-38 would contain.

Among those changes relevant to the current post were the changes to environmental legislation: the Navigable Waters Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the First Nations Land Management Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act, and a whole new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. And let’s not forget the Fisheries Act.

What’s noteworthy from the perspective of Jake’s paper is the role that science advice played in these policy changes, particularly those acts relying significantly on science previously. The answer: they didn’t. The sacred role of science advice in helping shape policy seems to have been totally ignored, and instead shaped entirely by those ‘partisan documents’ from special interests. Based on Jake’s assessment in the above quoted paragraph, this is not responsible decision making.

And one interest in particular seemed to play a major role in shaping these changes to environmental legislation, since many of the acts which were amended match those suggested for revision in a joint letter sent to the government from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (now the Canadian Fuels Association) and the Canadian Gas Association.

Apparently, the fear of having been seen as ignoring science advice in shaping policy was not considered, nor the potential ecological (and therefore economic) consequences of these decisions. Perhaps people 2, 3, 5, 10 years from now will be questioning the wisdom of this particular batch of decision-makers, as many are now currently and openly doing.

Instead, they’ve had scientists participating in precisely the exercise that Jake cautions against in his paper- using science to justify a particular policy decision. Advisory meetings bringing DFO scientists together from across the country have been held to try and make some meaningful scientific basis for it (mentioned here by the Atlantic Salmon federation, since the meetings and discussions of those meetings are not public). This is totally backwards from what should be happening- provide the science to shape the policy, not find the science to support the policy.

So, what are we as scientists (both government and academic) to do moving forward when trying to do applied science that might inform government policy? Jake has some advice on this too, which I think is more relevant today than ever.

Jake’s first piece of advice is to bring the science up to the level at which the decision is made. For example, rather than investigating “climate effects on fisheries from very important lake Y”, and leaving it at the level of how the fishery changes, take another paragraph in the discussion to explain the economic and social impacts of those changes- frame it in numbers of jobs, dollars and cents; what proportion of a particular communities economy is supported by the fishery, etc. While typically outside of the types of things we spend our time thinking about, it’s entirely relevant and in many cases, may not be so difficult to do. Arguably, this would also assist with connecting our work as scientists more broadly to societal issues, something we are often accused of falling short of.

Jake’s second piece of advice is suggesting that science advice be presented using methods that evaluate the probabilities of various potential policies as well as the potential effects of being wrong. Jake uses the example of signal detection theory; this and other Bayesian-type approaches may hold promise for providing some of the “risk” information that the science advice doesn’t typically contain in a quantifiable manner, or the manner that decision makers might be looking for.

It’s true that even this advice can continue to be ignored- but it needs to be out there for everyone to see and consider, so that it can be seen- objectively- when the decisions made by policy makers irresponsibly choose to ignore science.

Evidence for Democracy

My apologies for being quiet for a bit here- I’ve been trying to do, well, science.

Anyway, during my brief hiatus, I’m pleased to see that the folks who brought you the Death of Evidence rally in Ottawa this past summer have begun another group: Evidence for Democracy. Heck, they even have a facebook and twitter account.

Their initial campaign, “science uncensored” was launched about two weeks ago. What’s unique about this organization is that it’s citizen-based and is asking for citizens to weigh in on the topic of science censorship by the government. It’s clear that this government doesn’t seem to care what the journalists or scientists think, so maybe they’ll care what the voting public thinks.

Please have a look at the site and considering adding your name to the list of supporters. Heck, you even get to send the prime minister a message in support of the cause.

Muzzled science on a Sunday

I thought this was too good to pass up. A great spot on the muzzling of government scientists today on the Sunday Edition with Michael Enright, which you can listen to here. Speaking with Michael is Gordon McBean (pron. “McBain”), a climate researcher at the University of Western Ontario, president-elect for the International Council of Science, and former Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada, 1994-2000.

I especially like the reference in the intro to Kelly Leitch’s defense of the government position, which she stumbled all over on Power and Politics last week, just saying the same speaking points over, and over, and over (as Rick Mercer recently pointed out, it’s not just us scientists that are muzzled). Kelly’s inadequate response can be found here. She says that publication is the way to go (despite the fact that even that’s now in jeopardy given new rules that make my Division Manager, not me, the person responsible for reviewing and signing off on copyright transfer on publications).

McBean makes the point crystal clear: publication isn’t enough. To really be able to communicate science to the public, it requires speaking, in plain language, the research that is being done. It’s this that so rarely happens now.

The topic eventually swings around to the potential “politicization of science” as a consequence of scientists speaking about their research. I think it’s important to point out that this swings both ways- e.g., by limiting communication and directing topics of investigation, the government is helping contribute to policy-driven science, not scientifically-based policy decisions. There’s a big difference, which I’m working on hashing out for a future post.