Skip to main content

Gary Corbett, President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) holds a press conference at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa, Monday Oct. 21, 2013, to reveal the results of a major survey hosted by Environics Research to gauge the scale and impact of "muzzling" and political interference among federal scientists.

Sean Kilpatrick/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Many federal scientists say they fear they would be punished by the Conservative government if they exposed a decision made by their department that could harm the public.

Large numbers also told Environics Research last June that they are aware of actual cases in which political interference with their scientific work has compromised the health and safety of Canadians or environmental sustainability. And nearly half of those who took part in the survey said they knew of cases in which the government suppressed scientific information.

In addition, the poll results suggest that 24 per cent of government scientists have been asked to exclude or alter technical information in federal documents. Liberal science critic Ted Hsu, who is also a physicist, said any political interference in scientific papers would be alarming.

Story continues below advertisement

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), which represents 55,000 professional civil servants, engaged Environics to survey 15,398 government scientists in 40 departments and agencies. The results released on Monday suggest a broad consensus among the scientists that they are being muzzled to the detriment of the public.

"According to the survey, 90 per cent of federal scientists do not feel they can speak freely about their work to the media," Gary Corbett, the president of PIPSC, told a news conference. "But it is even more troubling that, faced with a departmental decision or action that could harm public health, safety or the environment, nearly as many scientists – 86 per cent – do not believe they could share their concerns with the media or public without censure or retaliation."

About 26 per cent of the government's scientists – 4,069 of them – took part in the poll. Derek Leebosh, the vice-president of public affairs for Environics, said that is a "robust" response compared to other surveys of this nature. The results are expected to reflect the opinions of all federal scientists accurately within 1.6 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

When asked about the survey, Greg Rickford, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an e-mail that the government has made record investments in science. "As such, Canada is ranked number one in the G7 for our support for research and development in our colleges, universities and other institutes," Mr. Rickford wrote. But he did not address the allegations that scientists are being muzzled.

A government source pointed out that in 2012, Environment Canada scientists conducted 1,300 interviews, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada issued nearly 1,000 scientific publications, and Natural Resources published nearly 500. "Those are concrete facts of Canadian scientists sharing their information with the public," the source said.

But Environment Canada conducts many interviews about the weather. And reporters' requests to talk to scientists about other topics are often refused. While federal scientists have occasionally chafed at the restrictions governments have placed upon them in speaking to the media, they say they were relatively free to conduct interviews until the Conservatives changed the communications policy in 2007.

The poll also suggests that 60 per cent of the scientists at Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans believe the government is not incorporating the best climate-change science into its policies.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter