Six months ago, I was a government scientist. Then, the consensus among my colleagues was that communications practice was more limiting than is reasonably necessary. Just last month, a letter signed by 800 international scientists echoed this sentiment, urging the Canadian government to “remove excessive and burdensome restrictions and barriers to scientific communication and collaboration faced by Canadian government scientists.”
This perception was verified as reality by a recent report by Evidence for Democracy that graded federal departmental policies on media access to government scientists. The grade average across 16 departments was a C-, with four departments failing and only one receiving a B or higher (Department of National Defence). Strikingly, Canada lags far behind departmental policies in the United States, both current and past.
But it’s worse than the report suggests. As the report acknowledges, policy is not practice, and evidence is mounting that the current practice in many departments is more restrictive than outlined in the policies.
My former department, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, received a relatively high grade of C, despite widely reported cases in which media have been denied access to DFO scientists. Max Bothwell and Kristi Miller of the Nanaimo Pacific Biological Station are two prominent examples.
I worked with DFO for nearly four years.
The difference between organizations in both communications policy and practice couldn’t be greater. Under my current employer, our communications department works hard to promote our research in the media. I and other scientists are frequently sought out to speak about our work or assist reporters looking for comment or insight aligning with our expertise.
By comparison, with DFO, I was never approached by my communications department with a media request, or provided with support to promote my research. Upon receiving requests for comment, I followed policy and referred them to our communications department. These requests were typically met with silence.
Never in four years did I receive communications approval to speak with media by deadline. My experience only represents a sample size of one, but recent reports released by the union representing government scientists suggests that it reflects a perception shared by many of my former colleagues (in this and many other departments) that limits on our communications were excessive.
Some argue for communication limits on federal public scientists. I, with all other public service employees, agreed to a “values and ethics code” that emphasizes a balance between duty to loyalty and an employee’s freedom of speech. It is reasonable to expect that public servants would not be publicly critical of their employer, or the policies they implement.
But this is a very different argument than suggesting they ought to have limits placed on their ability to discuss their publicly funded research or provide expert comment on the science of the day. Scientists are self-regulating. We are a careful bunch. We double- and triple-check our calculations and results, applying different approaches to verify our conclusions. Because our work is reviewed and challenged by our peers, we are particularly careful not to overstate the results of our studies.
Similarly, the risk of government scientists making statements that go beyond their own expertise are more limited by having to face their colleagues, rather than their employer.
Progress in science is founded on dialogue, the public exchange of information and discussion around findings and conclusions. It is clear from this recent report, as well as my experience, that current communications policies and practices are doing little to facilitate open scientific dialogue in the federal public service.
But I have hope that this report and the discussion that it generates just might instigate the change that we need. That change can start with better communications policies that are freely available (some departments don’t have them at all), and ultimately lead to better practice.
When scientists have been obstructed from communicating (as were Miller and Bothwell), the inability of these scientists to speak has done great damage to public perceptions of government openness. It is far more than any perceived damage that might have been done by letting them comment on their work in the first place.
Michael Rennie is a research scientist with the IISD Experimental Lakes Area and adjunct professor with the University of Manitoba.
