Tyson Kelsall
Culture Editor

n 16 September rallies were

held across Canada to argue
the government's treatment of science
and scientists. This was not the first
display of displeasure from the science
community, nor will it be the last as
events continue to unfold. The popular
expression is that scientists are being
“muzzled” in Canada, and it has
caught the eye of the international
world, including criticism from an
editorial in the New York Times, which
ties in nicely to Canada winning the
international “Fossil of the Year” award
for the last five straight years for its
inaction towards climate change.

Over the Edge spoke with Dr. Katie
Gibbs, biologist, and Founder and
Executive Director of Evidence for
Democracy, the group that organized
the “Stand Up For Science” rallies that
occurred nationally in September.

OTE: Can you talk about your
involvement with the Standing Up For
Science rallies?

KG: After the ‘Death By Evidence"
rally last June, we thought instead of
having just one big rally in Ottawa,
we could have it other cities as well.
So, we put a call out that we had

this idea to have them all on one

day. Our hope was to have maybe
three or four, but the response was
very positive. We ended up having 18
cities. Even on the day of the rallies we
were getting calls about adding cities
to the list. Personally, | sort of initiated
them. There was the one in Ottawa,
but | suggested having them across
Canada; really it did require having
local organizers. We were able to
offer them supports: such as poster and
press release templates, suggestions,
sound systems, talking points, and
sometimes money.

OIE: So, it was quite a bit more
successful than you imagined at first?

KG: Yeah exactly, there is no way

| would have expected 18 cities,
especially the response from smaller
cities. We initially thought that we
would have Ottawa, Montreal,
Vancouver, Toronto and that kind of
thing. But, it was really interesting to
see all these tiny places like Salmon
Arm, Fredericton, or Yellowknife, and |
think that can be even more powerful.
There's lots of tak about how the
media and government almost expect
protests to happen in these big cities,
whereas in smaller towns they do not
as often organize rallies. When they

Conservatives Versus...

happen in these towns also, you see
people concerned about their fellow
community members, and not just issues
happening in Ottawa, it really brings it
home.

OTE: What would you say that Harper
is doing so differently? | have noticed
he's the target of many of these rallies
and slogans like “Conservatives
muzzles scientists, than the more
recent Liberal governments?

KG: Yeah, well it isn't just this
government. Their policies are probably
the worst that | have seen when it
comes to science, but the Liberals
before them made drastic cuts as well.
So we are really trying to make the
rallies non-partisan, but the policies
right now are really bad and we need
to point that out. There are a few
things, the first being the governments
communication policy. Government
scientists are no longer able to talk

to media. So, before there were only

a few science journalists in Canada
and when they were doing a science
piece, they could just call-up the
government scientists. The policy has
changed so that now, scientists have
been told that they have to forward
any media requests to a representative.
Sometimes, we're seeing journalists
never get called back, or getting
called back one to two weeks later.
Getting an answer in two weeks is
pretty much considered not getting

an answer at all [for many journalistsl.
Sometimes they are permitted to do
an interview, and a communications/
media minder will be on the phone

as well. They will interrupt if they don't
like the question being asked, or they
will cut off the answer if they do not
like where the answer is going. We
have also seen cuts from some really
important institutions for gathering
information, things like: the long form
census, or environmental monitoring
places like the Experimental Lakes
Area. These are institutions that provide
evidence that is essential to making
good policy. Additionally, what we've
seen is huge cuts to what we call
“basic” or “fundamental” research. So,
this is research that is sort of curiosity
driven, research that is not trying to
get to particular outcome. For people
who are not in science this might make
sense. However, it is not really the way
science works. Looking back historically,
many scientific discoveries that we use
every day, like cellohones, MRI and
laser surgery, etc. came from this basic
curiosity-driven research. This is sort of

the way the mind works. We see much
more innovation and success when
scientists are given that free-reign to
use their imagination, rather than trying
to direct it somewhere. What we have
seen is a complete gutting of funding
for that type of research. The funding
that remains has shifted completely to
things like industry partnershios and
that kind of research.

OIE: So, you talked about industrial
pacts and also convenience - do you
think that Harper is directing science
heavily by his own ideologies? Are
these short-term economic gain and
resource extraction, things like this?

KG: Well, [Harper] has not been

very secretive about wanting to

turn Canada into a type of energy
superpower and promote resource
extraction in general. Certainly, some
of the cuts we have seen have been
towards environmental research and
environmental monitoring. | do think
part of that is pre-emptively avoiding
any inconvenient facts that may arise.
My viewpoint is exactly that if we
want fo ramp up resource extraction,
we actually need more research. We
need to know the effects of certain
resource extractions. We need to know
the effects of a potential oil spill. The
science will not tell you whether that
is good or bad idea, that is really a
value-based decision, but we need to
know exactly what the consequences
of that increased resource extraction
will be. Where, we what we have seen
is a complete gutting of it.

OIE: This denial of science: what do
you think it means to slowing down or
stopping climate change?

KG: Well, certainly the closing down of
places like PEARL, a northern research
station that monitors the climate in the
north is a concern. It is just shocking
that things like this are being shut down.
Most people seem to agree that
climate change is one of our biggest
concerns, especially in Canada and in
the north.

OTE: You mention in Canada and the
north it is a big concern, but when
talking about climate change does it
not become a global issue and not
just a national one when talking
about science funding?

KG: Yeah and there are two
kinds of issues; one being actually
doing science, and one being
listening to the scientists’ findings.

| think other countries they do not

Culture °

have the gutting of science, they may
still have that other part of not doing

anything with the science, whereas in

Canada it is taking a step further and
cancelling the ability to have scientific

research.

OIE: Scientists are stereotypically
known as introverts - geniuses doing
their work in the lab - when is the last
time scientists had to take this kind of
action? Do you think it takes something
serious for this fo happen?

KG: | have not really heard about
scientists rallying like this in Canada.
The last time | can think of is in the
1970s around Nuclear Proliferation.
Scientists prefer not to get involved; we
are very passionate about research
and it is a never-ending job. But we
have gotten to a point where we've
realized if we're not going to stand up
for it, then nobody is. We're the ones
doing the research; we really know
why it is important fo everyone and not
just scientists. As an additional point,

| really think the next generations of
scientists are totally comfortable with it
though. They are on Twitter, they are
on Facebook, you know, they kind of
have these communication skills. | think it
is interesting how this dynamic, and this
stereotype might start changing.

Since the end of the rallies work

has began behind-the-scenes. Dr.
Gibbs, along with other scientists are
working together and speaking to
people about what kind of policies
need to be changed. Will Canada
become a leader in climate science, or
continue to collect its’ annual Fossil of
the Year award? Will Stephen Harper
and the Conservatives become

more concerned about fundamental
scientific research or just the type that
in convenient for them? If past actions
say anything, then probably not, but
Katie Gibbs’ rallies and speeches
have shown there is citizen support for
evidence in our democracy.