Less than a month into the Trump presidency, and the forecast for science seems ominous.
Scientists at federal agencies have been hit with gag orders preventing them from communicating their findings, or in some cases, attending scientific conferences. Social media accounts and websites have been censored, and at least one agency was asked to identify personnel who worked on climate policies. Now there are proposals for slashing research budgets and gutting funding that could affect the training of the next generation of scientists. To top it all off, President Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees and senior advisers include many who are climate deniers or doubters.
Canadians experienced a similar assault on science a decade ago under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Just as the American science community is now struggling with whether to speak out and march or stay quiet and do its work, Canadian scientists wrestled with the same questions. Ultimately, Canada’s scientific community came together to save our research, galvanised support to fight back, and captured the attention and concern of the public. I hope our experience — in the spirit of science transcending borders — can be instructive.
Starting in 2007, shortly after Harper became prime minister, new rules were issued that prevented federal scientists from speaking freely with the media about their research without clearing it with public relations specialists or having an administrative “minder” accompany the scientists on interviews or to scientific conferences. More often, the government would simply deny permission for a scientist to speak with reporters if that person’s findings ran counter to Harper’s political agenda. Inquiries from journalists became mired in an obstinate bureaucracy, and media coverage of government climate research dropped 80 per cent after the rules were imposed.
This censorship also had a chilling effect on scientific inquiry. A survey of federal Canadian scientists revealed that 90 per cent felt they could not speak freely to the media about their work. If they were to speak up about science that affected public health or the environment, 86 per cent felt that they would suffer retaliation. Nearly half of the scientists knew of specific cases of political interference hampering efforts to protect the public.
One of the biggest blows came when research libraries were closed and historical data and reports, many unique and irreplaceable, were literally thrown into dumpsters. This purge of environmental data was justified as a “cost-saving” measure. Additionally, many crucial data-gathering institutions were closed or saw their funding cut.
To the outrage of the international science community, this included cutting all funding for the Experimental Lakes Area, a world-renowned research facility where scientists run experiments on pollution and environmental contaminants in more than 50 small lakes in northwestern Ontario. Other casualties included our northernmost Arctic monitoring station and our national census.
Reluctant to engage in politics, most scientists kept their heads down and tried to wait it out. It was when Harper’s government passed a sweeping bill that eliminated or amended our marquee environmental protection laws that we reached our boiling point.
Fearing the continued erosion of even the most basic protections for food inspection, water quality and human health, Canadian scientists filled Ottawa’s streets in the Death of Evidence march. That theatrical mock funeral procession became something of a cultural touchstone. It was a turning point that galvanised public opinion against Harper’s anti-science agenda. By the next election, Justin Trudeau’s centre-left government swept in on a platform that put scientists’ right to speak and the promise of evidence-based decisions alongside job creation and economic growth.
So here’s our advice as the Trump administration gears up. Spotlight and champion scientists’ refusal to kowtow to intimidation. I’m encouraged by what has already emerged: When Trump’s transition team circulated a questionnaire intended to identify staff members who had worked on climate change policies under President Barack Obama, Department of Energy employees refused to release their names. When National Park Service employees were prevented from sharing information on social media, they created alternative Twitter accounts overnight and tweeted the truth about climate change and pollution from dusk to dawn.
Scientists who usually shy away from political engagement are condemning President Trump for handing the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy and the State Department to a group of men who have denied climate change or questioned the extent to which humans are responsible for global warming. Now scientists from across the country are planning a March for Science in the nation’s capital.
In some quarters, scientists advise their colleagues to remain quiet, keep their noses to the microscope and at most venture out to local meetings so that the “average voter” will know that they’re people, too, and that their work is valuable. But our experience leads to a different conclusion: Come together, speak up and speak out.
Scientists must recognise and fight political censorship, while they remain vigilant for political interference. Many federal science agencies have rules against political meddling in the scientific process. And whistle-blower protections provide federal (and some state) scientists with an additional safety net to report unethical suppression of scientific information. Researchers should confirm that reports they submit are the same as those published, and if changes have been made for political reasons, let the public know.
Share documents widely and back up data in a secure location if the administration politicises or interferes in research. Encrypted chats, phone calls from home lines and face-to-face meetings can help spread information without the fear of political meddling. Speaking out, especially through scientific organisations, tells colleagues they need not be afraid. The warmth of community staves off the chill of censorship. Don’t let science be silenced.
Evidence and objective reality are the foundation of successful policy and governance. Openness is as vital to science as it is to democracy. We cannot allow hard-won knowledge to be ignored or distorted. To fight the snuffing of the light of scientific inquiry, learn from your neighbours to the north. Reject interference. Stay vigilant and stay vocal. In other words, stay scientists.
— New York Times News Service
(Wendy Palen is an associate professor of biology at Simon Fraser University and the board chairwoman of the non-profit Evidence for Democracy.)
