E4D bulks up its network of experts to promote evidence-based decision making

Evidence For Democracy (E4D), a national organization advocating science and evidence-based decision making by government, is boosting the size of a network of experts to work within the scientific community to mobilize and strengthen its voice. The network is intended to monitor and report on the use of evidence in government decisions.

Although the network has been in existence since E4D was launched last year, a $10,000 grant from the Ivey Foundation is facilitating an expansion of its size to as many as 1,000.

"It's been a pilot up to now and it's already producing results. So far we've used the network as a peer review mechanism on our campaigns and as an advocacy network to generate interest," says Dr Katie Gibbs, E4D's executive director. "There are about 100 people in the network now but there's a lot of potential to grow it by recruiting from our supporters list. Many are experts and may join."

The network is intended to enhance transparency and government accountability. A public archive of decisions will be created, accumulating data to support assessments of the track record of government decision-making at all levels of government.

Case studies will evaluate the extent to which government policies, administrative changes, statutory ammendments and legal reforms rely on scientific evidence and whether decisions and policy are consistent with the best available evidence.

Most recently, E4D sent a letter signed by 300 scientists to its network expert members urging the prime minister to reject the findings of a joint panel recommendation to approve the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (see below). The letter was sent out prior to its publication on June 3rd, giving members the opportunity to provide their perspective on the issue to the media.

"It's a structured approach. Members can sign on to become media contacts," says Gibbs. "Many journalists often don't have a lot of science contacts and use the same ones all the time. This allows for a diversity of science contacts."

E4D is augmenting the network of experts with the creation of virtual panel within the network that will be triggered by news stories. Gibbs says a virtual panel may be struck to assess and comment on the government's proposed National Conservation Plan, announced in the last Budget.

This fall, E4D will launch an on-line portal where people can post stories about the impact of science evidence over the past decade. The portal and other activities are being funded through a $96,000 grant E4D received from the Ontario Trillium Foundation earlier this year to build capacity for its education, monitoring and outreach campaigns (R$, May 7/14).

E4D's activities are not confined to criticism of government's use of scientific evidence. Gibbs says the group has spoken out in favour of government actions, citing the Ontario government's decision to support the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) science facility which was slated for closure by the federal government (R$, September 10/13).

The Harper government's decision to close the ELA for an annual savings of $2 million prompted the formation of the forerunner to E4D. Then called Death of Evidence, the group organized a rally that saw thousands of mainly young scientists converge on Parliament Hill to protest what they viewed as ideology trumping science in decision making as well as the muzzling of federal scientists from communicating their research findings to the public and the media (R$, July 31/12).

Northern Gateway Project

The Open Letter on the Joint Review Panel report regarding the Northern Gateway Project reflects the kind of issues E4D helps to publicize and disseminate. The scientific signatories expressed concern that the panel's recommendations for approval are based on "flawed analysis" and contained "so many systemic errors and omissions that we — the 300 signatories — can only consider it a failure".

The scientists assert that the panel considered biased evidence in their deliberations, including acceptance of "information from the proponent without external evaluation". The result is a report that omits consideration of increased greenhouse gas emissions and contradicts the government's own scientific evidence, "including risks to large whales and other marine species".

R$