To boldly go. . .

Asurprising, and rather interesting controversy broke out within the political class last Wednesday following a speech by newly appointed Governor-general and former astronaut Julie Payette. Payette was addressing the Canadian Science Policy Convention in Ottawa when, during her keynote speech, She failed to display the traditional political ‘neutrality’ required by largely ceremonial position as de-facto Head of State. She did that by emphatically preaching an obvious truth in public.

The Governor-general of Canada plays a largely symbolic, but crucial, role in the Constitutional structure that governs our country. Although Canada has been an independent nation since 1982, it is subject to the British Crown, whose duties are fulfilled by the Governor-general. He or she sits above the partisan politics of the day and has no role is setting government policy, although the announcement of said policy in the Speech from the Throne does fall within the Vice-regal responsibilities. It also ultimately the Governor-general’s responsibility to dissolve Parliament when a government calls an election or falls and to decide if a coalition is possible that would render a premature election unnecessary.

The Governor-general is appointed by the Monarch on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and usually serves as five-year, renewable term. Besides its limited constitutional function, the Governor-general’ office is largely ceremonial and allows the country as a whole to be represented in a manner representative of the country’s values and, perhaps, self-image. In recent decades, it has also been used to highlight and honour the achievements of key members of Canada’s various and diverse communities. In that sense, a Prime Minister’s choice of Governor-general says a great deal about the image the government of the day desires to project. Previous governments have chosen outstanding individuals from minority, immigrant, and marginalized communities and have put forward some truly admirable women, of whom Payette is merely the latest. And admirable and impressive she is.

Payette is a 54-year old Montreal native who studied electrical and computer engineering and Mcgill and the University of Toronto. After a career in computer science in the private sector, Payette was chosen in 1992 as one of four successful candidates out of over 5,000 applicants to become a Canada Space Agency astronaut. She flew two missions to the International Space Station. She is also an accomplished musician.

The speech before the Canadian Science Policy Convention was one of her first major public appearances since taking on her new role and both by her appointment and her appearance she was proclaiming Canada’s formal commitment to the importance of science and its role in guiding non-partisan government policy. In case the subtlety was missed, Payette made no bones about her refutation of the current tendency among the public – and public servants – to impugn and deny rigorous scientific investigation in exchange for conspiracy theories, junk science, and propaganda.

So far, of course, there isn’t anything really controversial about what she said. She continued on, however, to mock climate change deniers and creationists, among others, and rueing the presence of such dinosaurs in the halls of power. She thereby stumbled into the realm of the ‘political’ and partisan, committing a serious protocol no-no. Seriously?

While undoubtedly there are members of specific religious minorities who choose to take their chosen sacred text literally, no matter how absurd a portrait of reality it might paint, there is no responsibility of the state to acknowledge or cater to that particular belief. On the other hand, the state does have the responsibility to ensure that its citizens are being served properly by governments guided by proven facts underlined by demonstrable explanations. Science is not always right, but when it’s wrong it is so in an organized disciplined manner conducive to exposing, however reluctantly, its errors. In directly discrediting things like climate change denial, creationism, or astrology, for that matter, she is declaring both a personal and governmental commitment to the scientific approach and factbased decision-making. There really shouldn’t be anything controversial about any of that.

Payette is the perfect pitch man for a commitment to science, trained as she is in fields dedicated not to incomprehensible theories written in math, but in finding ways of putting these theories to work in ways that humans can use. They make things. More than that, they have to make things that work dependably and consistently. Engineers might pray – and pray often in fact – but they aren’t praying for a miracle to correct their mistakes.

Payette, of course, still has yet to fully appreciate how speaking direct truth can come back and bite someone in her position but in her defense, she was speaking to an audience pretty much in unanimous agreement with what she was saying; it was a science policy convention, after all, and she could not have been prepared for the attention such a speech would attract. In the future, she might have to choose a more delicate approach, but in no way should she retreat from championing the truth

Science, it is true, has led to many of mankind’s most serious existential threats. Without the scientific developments that preceded the Industrial Revolution, we would not be awash in pollution, global warming, and an unsustainable consumerism. Without the revolutionary thinking of the last century we would not have the life-saving medicines and technologies that lengthen our lives, but neither would he have nuclear weapons. Science merely unveils reality; it should be guided by honest curiosity and dogma, legitimate questions, not groundless belief.

It is unlikely that this little distraction will have much of a lasting impact on Payette’s vice-regency but it should bring into the fore the effect that things like fundamentalist beliefs can have on political debate. To the south, we are all witnessing the chaos that the rejection of expertise, the questioning of all informed opinion and the substitution of vehemence for knowledge in political debate can have on a great society. There is a large and varied number of people who believe literally the story of the universe’s creation as outlined in the Judaeo-christian tradition or in any of the numerous creation stories that colour religious belief, and our constitution guarantees that we respect their right to do so. But we should never forget that besides holy books, God gave us the gifts of curiosity, ingenuity, creativity, and foresight. It’s doubtful we would be better off ignoring what they can teach us in order not to offend purveyors of demonstrably false children’s stories.