SCIENCE RISES AGAIN
Dark Ages approach is over, but much work remains, writes David Schindler.
“Cutting off fundamental, curiosity-driven science is like eating the seed corn. We may have a little more to eat next winter but what will we plant so we and our children will have enough to get through the winters to come?” —Carl Sagan
The above quote characterizes the Canadian government’s approach to fundamental science for the past decade. Only science that could rapidly underpin new commercial applications was deemed to be worthy of public support.
Canadian environmental science, despite its stellar reputation for proactively identifying and inexpensively solving problems, was singled out as a barrier to industrial development.
Environmental groups (and by inference environmental scientists) were even labelled as foreign-funded radical groups that conspired to hold back economic progress. Federal environmental scientists, even those of international renown, were silenced from speaking about their own research. Several federal science libraries were closed.
Environmental legislation that might delay industrial development in any way (particularly development related to the exploitation and sale of fossil fuels) was weakened to expedite the approval of mega-projects ranging from oilsands developments to pipelines. The office of the national science adviser was eliminated: henceforward, scientific direction would come from the Prime Minister’s Office.
All of this was done to rapidly transform Canada into an “energy superpower,” to use the optimistic vision for the Canadian oilsands expressed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the 2006 G8 Summit.
The Canadian approach was strangely at variance with most of the western world, which has continued to follow the advice of Gro Harlem Brundtland: “Science must underpin our policies. If we compromise on scientific facts and evidence, repairing nature will be enormously costly—if possible at all,” a view that most scientists and intelligent bureaucrats have also endorsed in Canada during much of my lifetime.
The difference in philosophy led to Canada being ostracized internationally asa scientific ally backward country.
The damage has gone well beyond environmental science. Art Carty, a chemist who was the last federal science adviser, speaking at a convention on science and policy in Ottawa in December 2015, said “over the last decade, Canada, through the actions and policies of its government, has sunk to a new low. That has resulted in an erosion of trust, evidence and advice being ignored, and science, generally speaking, being under siege.”
Happily, the “Dark Ages” approach to Canadian science appears to be over.
Within days of the Liberals assuming power, federal scientists were unmuzzled.
New ministers received written orders to re-fund valuable science programs. New overtures were extended to indigenous people for a more inclusive approach to environmental decision making. A new Ministry of Science was created to assist in restoring science to its previous status.
These are good beginnings to restoring Canada’s scientific stature in the world. But much more must be done. The tarnished image of science in this country will adversely affect efforts to recruit both international scientific talent and bright young Canadians who might choose science as a career. This will greatly hinder the recovery of Canadian science.
It will also be difficult to retain the attention of a government beset by many other problems. We who understand the importance of science must do what we can to keep attention focused on the topic. In environmental science, the tasks are relatively simple.
First, restore the changes that were made to weaken environmental legislation. Some of the legislation could be greatly improved, such as application of the Species at Risk Act to all of Canada, rather than just federal lands. That would require a level of co-operation with provinces never before seen in Canada. But without such coordination, we will continue to lose biodiversity.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is unnecessarily cumbersome, a point upon which I agree with Harper. But it should be streamlined by making better background science and ecological assessments readily available, not by weakening environmental protection.
Second, to ensure the transparency that is necessary for clear decisions in a functioning democracy, the expertise and funding of federal science departments must be restored. But they must be able to operate at arms-length from the political process, so that it is clear when science is being ignored by ideologically driven decisionmakers.
Because federal science has been diminished for at least 20 years under all parties, this will require considerable efforts at recruitment and rejuvenation.
Universities also must develop and maintain meaningful programs in a diversity of fundamental sciences. These must be equally accessible to both genders and all races, including our own indigenous people, and they must be untainted by interference from government or big business.
There must also be a focus on high quality, not just quantity. The day is past when we can bolster the Canadian economy by simply devising more efficient or less expensive methods for extracting natural resources.
Humans are already exploiting Earth to 50 per cent beyond its capacity to repair itself, despite the fact that one-third of the planet’s human population uses less than their per capita share of resources.
Reliably expanding an economy in a resource-limited world will require entirely new approaches to producing energy and using available resources, rather than simple expansions in old ways. Prosperity will depend increasingly on new innovation rather than simple expansion and slow improvement.
Scientifically, the challenge is equal to those of manned space flight or nuclear power, but the future of humanity depends much more directly on our success.
Further, universities must help to spread science literacy, which is essential for all citizens of a functional democracy in an age when effective policy decisions increasingly require understanding how our planet responds to human pressures that are threatening to overwhelm it.
Prosperity will depend increasingly on new innovation rather than simple expansion.
Water scientist David Schindler retired from the University of Alberta in 2013 following a 60-year career. This article originally appeared in the University of Alberta’s Science Contours magazine.