If I were to head a campaign to activate change, a shift to scientific consensus-based legislative decisions towards creating a sustainable future would form the basis of my platform.
In speaking of the discrepancy between scientific consensus and political will, Science editor Bruce Alberts stated that, "there is only one effective solution for this type of problem: Scientists must make both science education and community outreach a much more central part of the scientific culture" (1), echoing my own conclusions. Therefore, in my campaign I would encourage government to consult with Canadian scientists, and for scientists to engage in a responsible dialogue with their elected officials, communities and the media. The more clearly we understand issues the better we can focus on developing sustainable environmental, economic and social programs.
Along with Alberts, I agree that "it is crucial that both sides of any argument pay close attention to what science knows" (1). By having experts-in-the-field engage in an educational campaign that teaches the key points of important issues to the public, reconciling what is best for policy makers and what is best for those subject to those policies becomes a more realistic goal. This is due in part to the objectivity inherit to the scientific method, which allows it to side-step the accusation of partisanship. At the same time, in situations where there is a strong scientific consensus such as in the case man-induced climate change, scientists should become more vocal: scientists should supply Canadians with objective data at the same time as they advocate that the facts be used to set coherent national goals.
This scenario is, however, only achievable where there is willingness on the part of government to listen to scientists. For this reason, the recent reports of the muzzling of scientists in Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by the Harper government are particularly concerning (2, 3). Margaret Munro, a National Writer for Postmedia News on science and research warns that, "researchers, who used to be free to discuss their science, are now required to follow a process that includes 'media lines' approved by communications officers, strategists and ministerial staff in Ottawa". When politicians only listen to scientists insofar as it supports the party's interest, it becomes all the more important for scientists reach for public support. It is public scrutiny, after all, which makes government more responsible.
An increase in public outreach by scientists has been strongly and uniformly urged by such notable academics such as Dr. Joe Schwartz (Office for Science and Society, McGill), Dr. Ben Goldacre (The Guardian News), and Dr. Peter Agre (nobel laureate). In answer to the demand, there has been an encouraging upsurge in numbers of science writers -- often graduate students who blog about research-related topics -- in the past few years. Outstanding examples include "Not Exactly Rocket Science" by Ed Yong, "In the Pipeline" by Derek Lowe, and -- a new and notable -- "My Pet Hypothesis" by Peter Kublik. In addition, long-standing organizations like "Lets Talk Science" are working to engage youth in hands-on physical and life science activities, and McGill's Office for Science and Society is dedicated to disseminating scientific information specifically to the public, and new organizations like Quebec's "Science & Policy Exchange" annually collect government officials, students, and leaders in industry and science for a round-table discussion of the issues affecting the province (4).
In order to achieve scientific consensus-based policy decisions, it is necessary for scientists to engage in a public education campaign, and, with this goal in mind, I would ask that researchers become more proactive in seeking out and contributing to public outreach initiatives (if they do not already do so). By training in biomedical communications I hope to eventually assist in these endeavours by acting as a liaison between scientists and the public.
References
1. Alberts, B. (2010). "Policy-making needs science." Science 330(6009): 1287.
2. Munro, M. (2011). Ottawa silences scientist over West Coast salmon study. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, Postmedia News.
3. Mitchell, A. (2010). Harper's Humiliating Muzzle on Scientists. The Tyee.
4. "Science & Policy Exchange: Science and Policy issues affecting Quebec." from http://www.sp-exchange.ca/.
