Harper’s blatant hypocrisy on science
ALANA WESTWOOD In a rare one-on-one interview this past Thursday with the CBC, Prime Minister Stephen Harper definitively laid out his position on vaccination. Directly confronting the anti-vaccination movement, he chided Canadians, “Don’t indulge your theories; think of your children and listen to the experts.”
Harper is right: vaccinations have saved millions of lives, and the science in support of them is overwhelming. Andrew Wakefield, the former British surgeon who claimed to show a link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism has been widely discredited and exposed as a fraud. Unfortunately, his misguided claims infected public consciousness and led to a resurgence of deadly diseases once thought eradicated. Harper called Canadians out, saying, “it’s a tragedy when people start to go off on their own theories and not listen to scientific evidence.”
He’s reinforcing that sentiment with a commitment to a further $3.5 billion of continued funding for maternal and child health worldwide, with vaccination being a cornerstone of the program.
It’s a commendable step. Still, there’s a not-so-subtle irony in Harper’s statements. The PM’s sudden endorsement of science is a peculiar turn in the wake of systemic and sustained affronts to Canadian scientists, statisticians and record keepers. Just recently, we have seen announcements of cuts to research funding for the Department of Justice, massive closures of libraries (including consolidation and loss of collections from Health Canada) and even restrictions on the ability of meteorologists to say the words “climate change.”
In the interview, Harper told the public, “I frankly don’t understand people who are walking away in our society from something that’s proven to work.” Except that seems to describe him and his government. What about the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), an internationally renowned research station that has been critical for our understanding of dangerous water contaminants?
The federal government walked away entirely from funding the modest $2-million per year centre, effec- tively ending the ELA. It took the force of a concerned citizens’ coalition to reopen it by facilitating a partnership between the government of Ontario and a Manitoba-based think-tank.
What about Insite? Vancouver’s safe-injection site has never had a death among clients and was proven to reduce the spread of HIV as well as facilitate addicts transitioning into treatment. The federal government not only walked away from funding, but actively tried to shutter the facility. It was only kept open because of a Supreme Court order after lengthy legal battles.
During his CBC interview, Harper supported his vaccination advocacy by saying that “we do have scientists and medical professionals who do great work and verify this.”
But in Canada, we have ever fewer such practitioners. More than 2,000 federal scientists have been dismissed since 2009. This government has cut or closed approximately 200 scientific research and monitoring institutions, many dealing with issues of monitoring food safety, environmental contaminants and other domains directly affecting the health of Canadians.
The hypocrisy of Harper’s recent statements runs even deeper. The prime minister shared some thoughts about effective policies and programs in the developing world, saying “. . . you’re going to kind of start to hit a wall if you don’t have better baseline data.” Indeed. How long after the axing of the mandatory long-form census will Canada hit the wall? From the drastically insufficient national household survey, we won’t even have appropriate baseline data about the basic demographics of our own country to plan hospital locations. It’s good to know we are prioritizing the collection of quality data in Tanzania, if not at home.
“The track record of this government doesn’t match Harper’s statement,” said Katie Gibbs, executive director of Evidence for Democracy. “We’ve seen drastic funding cuts to science, muzzling of science communication and government decisions not based on evidence.”
Meanwhile, this government has made a strong push for industrial-scientific partnerships. Funding has been blatantly redirected to developing innovations with the intent of generating immediate economic value. Would that include something like verifying the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine? Almost certainly not.
It’s wonderful to see our country’s leader come out in support of decisions based on science and evidence rather than personal opinion. Harper’s position (and funding) bodes well for mothers and children at risk in developing countries, but what about Canadians? On domestic soil, the question remains: when will the prime minister take his own advice?