Science for the lambs, or how a research community got its scream back

By Paul Dufour

Until recently, media headlines about cuts to national research and selective stifling of sound evidence in public decision-making have underscored an unsettling fact — the scientific community has been largely silent in speaking for itself. To be sure, public service unions are tracking issues on muzzling scientists and cuts to government science, former federal ministers are issuing letters about the threats to ongoing fisheries and marine research, and the Canadian Committee for World Press Freedom is handing out awards to science journalists for boldly tackling restrictions imposed on public scientists to speak about their work.

But largely missing in action has been any orchestrated lobby group that can strategically and aggressively represent the various dimensions of research and innovation in this country.

The chill in the research air brought about by a federal administration predisposed to silencing science has served to curtail the normal reflex that would accompany more effective lobby efforts from professional science societies. Because Canada has had no national association with any gravitas to send out a cri d'alarme, we are left with organizations that often have difficulty seeing past the horizon to assess the larger vista of our eco-system for knowledge and innovation.

Make no mistake, what affects one aspect of this organic enterprise will ultimately impact other sectors. For some reason, this feedback loop has been lost on professional organizations and others as they focus on protecting their own backyards from the invasive state species of homo obscurus.

Looking around other countries where science and its practitioners have been attacked, one can witness a rich spectrum of responses and tactics, ranging from effective use of social media to orchestration of campaigns, petitions and marches (all of it with well-honed analyses to back them). In the US, various groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the AAAS are rarely shy about publicly speaking out on cuts, and their potentially negative impacts to the integrity of science.

Indeed, several of these groups with some US Congress support have banded together to award a new Golden Goose Award to research projects that might sound odd, but have produced significant health or economic benefits. As part of its National Science and Engineering Week, the UK House of Commons with the Society for Biology has organized a Voices of the Future event where young scientists and engineers formed a select committee to put questions to the minister of science and the opposition critics for science in the chamber.

In Canada, research advocacy groups have finally begun to stir - it took some committed students and their mentors to speak out. The Death of Evidence (www.deathof evidence.ca) funeral march that took place on July 10 on Parliament Hill and related protests across the country was a start (see related story). That this was an unusual event was underscored by the buzz in the media; both here and abroad.

Historically, protests of this type are not new. One can point to the shuttering of the Avro Arrow CF-150 project in the late 50s; the "Scientific Scream" manifesto of Environment Canada scientists in the late 70s; the elimination of the Science Council of Canada in the early 90s; and more recently, the termination of the government's National Science Advisor and other advisory bodies.

All of these led to various letter-writing campaigns, media blitzes, and petitions. But none has triggered the scale and scope of frustration witnessed at the death march. Public good science, of course, could not speak at the rally and remains mute for fear of its short leash being shortened even more. But at least now government science has some keen allies — scientists, students and others who recognize that issues of evidence and democracy in decision-making go beyond their sandbox views of the world.

We may therefore have witnessed a tipping point with a new generation of tech-savvy and politically conscious scientists and their allies who understand social media and know how to mobilize it for effect. But it will take more to sustain the message.

Here are some modest suggestions for continuing the momentum:

Develop a clear public statement outlining why science matters (see the Tony Blair 2001 speech on this) with specific examples that have public meaning.

Invite local parliamentarians from all stripes to events where the sciences and innovation are on the agenda. Consider an annual science day on Parliament Hill, in addition to orchestrating a public science debate with all the political parties in the lead-up to the next federal election.

Recognize that science is ultimately aimed at shaping the human condition in all its respects. Yes it needs to be framed within a contemporary context, but because science provides the polity with sound evidence based on facts, it should not be muzzled or leashed. As Thomas Jefferson once argued, whenever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government.

Ensure a major science presence in the celebration plans for the forthcoming 150th anniversary of Canada.

Challenge senior government officials at all levels on future directions of science for Canada. Get their attention about the need to renovate dated science and innovation strategies and make them more open and relevant to today's climate and public needs (see the recent Quebec approach on this).

Target key messages to members of the federal government's Science, Technology and Innovation Council. While their advice is secret, their mandate is to provide evidence-based S&T advice on issues critical to Canada's economic development and Canadians' social well-being.

Examine, enlist and learn from good practices of similar campaigns that have been effective in other countries, including how to engage private sector associations and lobby groups more constructively.

Design and coordinate a collective research community brief or vision statement for next year's budgets and beyond. Make it clear that scientists understand how to operate in a climate of austerity and priority-setting without jeopardizing first principles of integrity and transparency.

This is a long-term agenda ... make sure the scream is well-DIRECTED and heard.

Paul Dufour is principal of PaulicyWorks and a fellow with the Institute for Science, Society and Policy, University of Ottawa.