It's not enough to bash in heads, you have to bash in minds

The Canadian government has no need for science

This should worry all Canadians regardless of what political party or ideology they support. There are many issues that require that politicians truly understand science. To make matters worse in many of these issues special interest groups have large incentives to ensure that politicians don’t understand the science, and unfortunately few politicians have the science education required to distinguish junk science from real science. Without a proper understanding of science, how can politicians make good policy?

The one scientist in this country who had direct access to the Prime Minister is being dismissed. Canada’s National Science Adviser, Dr. Arthur Carty, was appointed by former Prime Minister Paul Martin to provide expert advice on the government’s role in matters of science and science policy.

Now, less than four years after the position was created, the Harper government feels that it’s no longer necessary.

The National Science Adviser is a voice of reason to the government over actions it should take on issues such as climate change, genetically modified foods, managing fisheries, sustaining the environment – any time the politicians need to be educated on the basic science behind those often controversial issues.

Unfortunately this is just the last step in Stephen Harper’s attempts to reduce the advice the government receives from qualified scientists.

Eliminating the National Science Adviser is the latest in a string of events showing how our current government, at least at the top level, does not seem to be interested in the scientific perspective.

Soon after taking power, the Harper government moved the National Science Adviser position from the Privy Council Office down to Industry Canada, where Dr. Carty reports to the Minister there instead of directly to the PM. Following that, our Prime Minister embarrassed the country internationally by backing out of the Kyoto Accord and stonewalling the climate change discussions in Bali.

With out the advice of scientists we cannot expect the government to truly understand scientific issues, and be easily mislead by lobbyists peddling junk science. In short we can expect bad ineffectual policy.

Science, in its purest form, seeks the truth. When a scientific paper is published, it’s not expressing an opinion, it’s showing the results of careful measurements, data gathering, hypothesizing, experimentation, validation by peer review, all in an effort to get the clearest picture of what’s happening in nature. Sure, debate is part of the process, so is skepticism, but that makes the science stronger. You cannot shoot down good science unless you have good alternative scientific evidence to back it up.

Politics, on the other hand, is affected profoundly by opinion. Politicians need to please everyone to gain votes. So, when a scientific study points out a serious problem such as climate change and a solution that requires a hard decision about reducing carbon emissions, the politician must consider the effect of that decision on jobs (votes), industry (financial support), and public opinion (votes).

At the same time, those who feel threatened by a scientific finding, such as polluting industries, will lobby the government with their own experts who try to dismiss or cast doubt on the original finding. Notice I said dismiss or cast doubt. Industry-hired guns seldom arrive on the scene with their own evidence from experiments they performed and published that counter the mainstream idea. Usually, they’ll say, “I don’t believe it,” which is just an opinion, or they’ll look for small uncertainties in the data and focus on that to cast doubt on the results.

All science involves uncertainties – that’s the way the system works. But it takes a scientific eye to determine whether those uncertainties are significant or not. Without that perspective, a politician hears conflicting views or biased information that clouds the issue and confuses the public.

That’s where the National Science Adviser comes in. He or she is an independent, expert witness whose job is to provide perspective and education to the people at the top where the decisions are made.

Apparently, that’s no longer going to happen in Canada.

Leave a Reply