Is the federal government allowing partisan ideology to trump scientific fact and restricting its scientists of their right to free expression? More than 2,000 scientists and supporters marched on Parliament Hill last week to present their case for the loss of evidence-based decision making within the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. Their "Funeral Procession for the Death of Evidence" marked the largest scientific protest against the Canadian government in history.

Citing the weakening of environmental legislation, lab closures and strict government control over its researchers' ability to speak publicly, speakers lined up to condemn the federal government's stance and actions on science.

The July 10 protest was covered widely in the Canadian press and generated headlines in the international media and scientific journals. Many fear that Canada's reputation — already under fire over the rapid exploitation of the oil sands — will suffer further damage and loss of credibility as the government clears legislative hurdles to accelerate natural resource exploitation.

The slogan of "no science, no evidence, no truth, no democracy" was chanted by speakers and protesters who cited numerous examples they say reflect the government's disregard for science, particularly in the environmental realm. The action most frequently referred to is the decision to close the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) initiative — a 44-year-old project that has led to significant changes in industrial practices that were polluting Canada's lakes and killing its aquatic life.

Other actions cited by the protesters include changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (included in the controversial Bill C-38 omnibus Budget bill), closure of the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Lab (PEARL), changes at the National Research Council, scrapping of the mandatory Long Form Census, closure of the Office of the National Science Advisor in January/08 and changes to the Fisheries Act. The result, many say, has been a weakening of scientific data and knowledge that leads to uninformed decision-making.

"The tendency to use only data that you like is a misuse of information for alternative purposes. The definition according to Wiki and others is known as propaganda. If you think it can't happen in Canada then you are disregarding the very evidence that the government is providing us by their own actions," said Vance Trudeau, a professor of biology at the Univ of Ottawa. He added that the government's actions were "reminiscent" of the autocratic rule of former Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis in the 1940s and 1950s.

Trudeau was virtually alone among the speakers, however, to commend the government's recent push on commercialization and innovation. But he cautioned that the balance of support for both ends of the R&D spectrum was non-negotiable.

"Harper's government is fortunately promoting science in another way and this is supporting applied research. I fully support this idea. It's a very good move, it's very positive and we should actually be happy about that. But it cannot be at the expense of fundamental scientific discovery — fundamental research — that actually drives applied science."

Speakers didn't limit themselves to criticizing the government's treatment of scientists and selective use of scientific-evidence. Dr Alex Mackenzie, a professor of pediatrics at the Univ of Ottawa and principal investigator at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, lambasted the government's recent changes to immigration legislation and the government's tough-on-crime agenda and their impact on children.

"Bill C-31 which allows refugees, including children, to be incarcerated for a year without any right to appeal, is bad for children. Bill C-31 will also allow separation of a refugee from their spouse, their parents or their offspring (which) is also bad for the children. The withdrawal of medical benefits — bad for the children, terrible for the health economy," said Mackenzie, who once served as chief scientific officer at Genome Canada (R$, December 9/05).

"The long from census — those we cut are those on the margins of society — the chronically ill, impoverished. And finally, environmental assessment — it will cost an enormous amount of money. For the last five years, Canada has won the fossil of the year award at the UN convention," added Mackenzie. "We own the podium sadly in the way our Olympians can only dream of. 150,000 people die in Canada every year because of climate change, most of them children. I find it morally outrageous."

Government defends record

For its part, the Conservative government issued a statement on its support of S&T and innovation asserting that it has been a "fundamental priority of our government since 2006" driven by "historic investments". The statement included the oft-repeated assertion that Canada leads the G-7 in higher education R&D spending as a percentage of GDP — virtually the only indicator in which Canada ranks in the top 10. While it trumpeted the $1.1-billion, multi-year S&T investment in the 2012 Budget, no mention was made of the deficit-elimination cuts that have thrown hundreds of government scientists out of work and closed many departmental programs.

Dr Scott Findley, a key organizer of the event and a professor and former director of the Univ of Ottawa's Institute of Environment, urged protesters to take their messages to the Canadian public who, knowingly or unknowingly, depend on scientific evidence "warts and all" for clean drinking water and air, a healthy ecosystem and sustainable wildlife and fish.

"Informed opinion is the cornerstone of democracy. For all those Canadians who are not scientists but consumers of evidence irrespective of where you stand on the political spectrum, remember that it is both your right and your responsibility to be informed," said Findley. "Science is the best way we know for providing evidence untainted by ideology or political agendas."

Findley said the protest organizers are considering the next steps they can take to keep the issue of science and evidence-based decision making at the forefront of public debate.

"There are a number of issues and avenues that we can explore … I'm not sure which ones of those will receive our limited resources," said Findley. "The jobs and economic prosperity agenda — there are all sorts of values that relate to the physical environment, the natural environment, human health. Those are issues that are the focus of pure scientists, today's researchers, and that evidence is just not getting into the public domain."

For many speakers, the actions of the government represent an insidious trend that goes far beyond damage to the environment and decreasing scientific knowledge in support of evidence-based decision making.

"Evidence is the way adults navigate reality. To deny evidence is to live in a fairy world and if you're four years old, it's a wonderful place to be. But if you're a responsible adult ... you must deal with evidence," said Dr Arne Mooers, professor of biodiversity at Simon Fraser Univ. "When countries engage in fantasy it's called state propaganda … We have to start calling a spade a spade."

R$