Getting It Right: Canadian Conservatives and the “War on Science” [Preliminary Edition]

Abstract

Critics have paid considerable attention to the Conservative government’s record on science and technology. Cuts to funding and resources in these sectors, numerous environmentally-questionable policies, and charges of information control over Canada’s scientific community have served as evidence for many that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government and its supporters mobilize an “anti-science” ideology and are engaged in a “war on science.” However, the government has continued to make financial and rhetorical investments into science and technology to promote economic prosperity and boost Canadian national identity based on “innovation.” This article investigates the claim that Canadian Conservatives are “anti-science,” and asks whether this label is an adequate appraisal of the Canadian Right’s disposition toward science, or is beneficial to discussions on science and the public interest.Les critiques ont porté une attention spéciale à la fiche du gouvernement conservateur sur la science et la technologie. Les compressions budgétaire dans l’allocation des ressources dans ces secteurs, les nombreuses politiques douteuse portant sur l'environnement, et les plaintes de contrôle de l'information sur la communauté scientifique canadienne ont servi comme preuve pour plusieurs que le gouvernement du premier ministre Stephen Harper et ses partisans mobilisent une idéologie «antiscience» et sont engagés dans une guerre contre la science. Cependant, le gouvernement a continué de faire des investissements financiers et rhétoriques dans la science et la technologie afin de promouvoir la prospérité économique et de renforcer l'identité nationale canadienne fondée sur «l'innovation». Cet article examine l’allégation que les conservateurs canadiens sont «antiscience» et se demande si celle-ci est une évaluation adéquate de la disposition du droit du Canada envers la science, ou est bénéfique pour les discussions sur la science et l'intérêt public.

What Scientists Say about the Changing Risk Calculation in the Marine Environment under the Harper Government of Canada (2006-2015)

“…Many scientists spoke of funding cuts, program restructuring, reassignment of scientists to new positions that did not draw on their expertise, and other workplace barriers they experienced that made it difficult to anticipate, understand, and address risks. Examples such as closure of government libraries, research groups, longitudinal studies, and laboratories have been highlighted elsewhere (Amend and Barney 2015; Bailey et al 2016; Davies and Slivinski 2015; Richter 2015; Turner 2013), but our respondents spoke to the demoralizing impact of these government cuts: “you try and do your job and at the end of the day somebody just chops your arm off” (Interview 13, February 2, 2016). A notable example for Atlantic Canada was the closure of a DFO ecotoxicology lab that was doing cutting-edge research on the impacts of various development projects on marine ecosystems and commercial species including oil dispersants and aquaculture pesticides.…”

“…The Harper administration science agenda cut science funding and resources (Amend and Barney 2015; Bailey et al 2016; Davies and Slivinski 2015; Turner 2013; Wells 2014a), but scientists also spoke to the shift in funding and in bureaucratic resources toward innovative technologies and support for industry (see also Cooper 2009; Holloway 2015), rather than basic research into risk. For example, one informant noted: “If you were to come forward with the message that we are all about climate change during the Harper years, that would not have been very popular.…”

“…Scientists denounced the Harper Government for policies that rolled back environmental regulations, placed limits on government scientists communicating with the press, cut funding for research, and shut down research labs and scientific libraries (Goldenberg 2015; Greenwood 2013). In the media, such government policies were framed as a “War on Science” (Amend and Barney 2015), appropriating the discourse that scientists originally developed in response to the constructivist turn taken by science and technology studies (STS; Nelkin 1996; Latour 2004).…”