Opinion

Feds Fire Back at Tyee's 'Muzzled Scientists' Column

And the column's author responds to Environment Canada's defence of its practices.

By Charles Slowey and Mitchell Anderson, 1 Apr 2010, TheTyee.ca

tape-over-mouth2.jpg

Scientists views are promoted, not stifled, says Environment Canada.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Related

[Editor's note: The Tyee received this letter via email on March 26, sent by the Manager of Media and Public Relations for Environment Canada.]

In response to recent media coverage that the Environment Canada media relations policy "muzzles" scientists I would like to correct the record.

We are proud of the work our scientists do and we are working hard to promote their research and initiatives. After all, it's a major part of what the department does with nearly two thirds of our employees working in science and technology and conducting research to better understand wildlife, biodiversity, water, air, soil, climate, environmental prediction and environmental technologies. Environment Canada scientists are prolific publishers of peer-reviewed publications -- the seventh largest in the world with over 700 publications reviewed each year.

For the past two years, Environment Canada has been following a media relations policy that is consistent with those used by many public and public sector organizations. The policy is designed to ensure that requests for information by the media are responded to quickly, accurately and consistently.

Despite reports that media access is restricted, the fact is that since 2008 Environment Canada has responded to more than 6,000 requests from the media on a variety of environmental issues ranging from weather related inquiries to details about climate change science. Every year the number of media requests we coordinate continues to increase. In 2009, Environment Canada's call volume increased 35 per cent over the previous year.

Science is important to the department's work. We will continue to communicate and promote the work of Environment Canada scientists, including through our outreach initiatives on the web, our partnership in science.gc.ca, as well as in our e-zine and newsletters.

Charles Slowey

Director General, Communications

Environment Canada

TYEE CONTRIBUTOR MITCHELL ANDERSON RESPONDS:

Mr. Slowey's response to my article contained many words but seemingly little substance. The central premise of my piece was that a restrictive communications policy brought in 2007 had severely reduced the number of media stories on climate change.

This policy (which you can read here) itemizes the following mandatory procedure whenever the media attempts to contact an Environment Canada scientist:

Media relations at NHQ will coordinate all media calls coming into the department. Upon receiving a media call, the recipient will inform their direct supervisor and contact media relations

Media relations will work with individual staff to decide how to best handle the call; this could include:

- Asking the programme expert to respond with approved lines

- Having Media Relations respond

- Referring the call to the Minister's Office

- Referring the call to another department

Once the call is returned, Media Relations will log the call and close the file

Researchers are also frequently required to submit written answers for approval before speaking to reporters. So what has been in the impact of this policy on the media's access to Canadian climate scientists?

According to a leaked Environment Canada memo obtained by the Montreal Gazette, "Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80 per cent."

Three years ago there were 45 media stories that cited Environment Canada climate scientists. By 2008-09, this number had plunged to eight. Mission accomplished?

Canada as an arctic nation will be greatly impacted by climate change. It is vitally important that Canadians have free and open access to the world-class expertise of our publicly-funded scientists in order to make informed democratic decisions.

Instead, Environment Canada seems to be seeking to "muzzle" these researchers, in the words of the leaked memo that Mr. Slowey neither addresses nor refutes.

He instead intones that this is a "media relations policy that is consistent with those used by many public and public sector organizations."

True? The U.S. government has embraced a spirit of openness and transparency around climate science that is in sharp contrast to Canada. As detailed in an article in the Ottawa Citizen, NASA climate scientists are free to takes calls from the media without seeking political clearance.

NASA is also hosting an informative website on climate change that focuses on explaining the science, whereas the analogous Environment Canada website seems to focus much more on trumpeting the climate "accomplishments" of our political leaders.

The media bottleneck at Environment Canada that Mr. Slowey defends is also inconsistent with a federal policy that states: "Institutions must operate and respond effectively in a 24-hour media environment. They must be able, on short notice, to reach and inform the media on issues of importance to decision makers and the public."

Lastly, the important charges made by Dr. Schindler, as well as the recent "gutting" of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science are also unaddressed by Mr. Slowey.

Perhaps the best judge of the new communications policy comes from an un-named Environment Canada scientist who offered these thoughts on the situation:

"In thirty years of service in the Environment Department I was never stopped from giving the public my views on scientific issues. Now I am controlled and told what to say or I am not allowed to talk. I feel that the public pay for the scientific information we gain as government scientists and the public have a right to know what we are thinking. But we are afraid of the consequences if we speak out now. Democracy cannot work without access to the information needed for decision making."

I leave it to others in the Canadian scientific community to assess whether the statements made by Mr. Slowey are accurate. Our anonymous comment section is at your disposal... [Tyee]

Charles Slowey is Director General of Communications for Environment Canada.

Vancouver-based Mitchell Anderson is a widely published environmental journalist and occasional contributor to The Tyee. Mitchell's Tyee column that drew a response from Environment Canada first appeared on DeSmogBlog.

28 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Name

    2 years ago

    No question

    I've heard directly from enough federal scientists and other senior bureaucrats to have been convinced a long time ago that the muzzling in place is very real. It's not just happening at Environmental Canada and the impacts go way beyond suppressing stories on climate change.

    There is an enormous amount of important work, particularly science work, that regional branches of federal agencies do in BC that is virtually frozen because local bureaucrats have been bound, muzzled and hamstrung. Nothing happens without Ottawa's approval. On top of this, huge internal cuts to science and operational budgets have further restricted what they can do.

    Someone needs to do an analysis comparing current capacity to what used to be there a decade ago and to spell out the implications in full. No one likes paying taxes, but we need to at least be aware of what we're giving up. Most people still have this belief that there is a busy government apparatus operating that looks out for our interests when in fact much of that apparatus has become little more than a blank shell behind the remaining storefronts and web portals.

  • PacificNW

    2 years ago

    DFO Also

    I have friends who are scientists with DFO and also cannot comment to the media without clearance from Ottawa.

  • Intention Pure

    2 years ago

    NASA

    NASA is, realistically, of a higher procedural level than current American politicians or scientists. NASA runs the show, is bought and paid for ideology/propaganda, so of course they can take media calls without political clearance. Have you seen NASA's January 2010 Skywatcher chart . . . . what a propaganda piece. . . . it labels KNOWN GEO-ENGINEERING clouds, aka chemtrails and other weird discolored rolling wavy clouds, as normal sky clouds to look for! Canadian climate scientists are muzzled by the Harper government, because Harper desires to keep the masses sleeping, reguardless of the consequences. NASA is who has developed all the lies and spun information on climate science. What if we picked up the phone and called a Canadian climate scientist and asked him if he factored into his climate science/climate change studies the known SUN CYCLES that control solar system climate, and he said "No, Harper believes it is all caused by a religious diety that will pluck him and his family out of danger at the last minute!"
    But really, there is no point trying to deny that scientists are muzzled and killed all over the globe at the moment. The truth can de dangerous!

  • NicS

    2 years ago

    Muzzled Scientists, show us what you've got!

    Julian Assange, the spokesperson with Wiki Leaks speaking in Germany in Nov. 2009.

    Click here to relieve yourself: http://wikileaks.org/

  • Dale Jackaman

    2 years ago

    The Conservatives and our Scientists

    I am a licensed private investigator who works in the area of cyber-crime and the protection of intellectual property. I’ve worked in the sciences most of my professional life, most recently for many years as the IS Director at BC Research at UBC. I routinely talk to government scientists at various conferences and hand out my business card, not to solicited business but to tell them there is a method and a means to disseminate information outside of normal channels. As an investigator I treat my sources as confidential and only a court order under some circumstances will cause me to break that trust. Why do I do this? Because there is a climate of fear amongst these muzzled scientists, and muzzled they most definitely consider themselves to be. A common thread amongst them is a deep feeling of loathing and distrust against the current federal government, in particular against Harper and his political party who they consider anti-science. Harper and his government continue to be blissfully ignorant of the realities of the world’s situation on environmental issues, and they pass on that blissful ignorance through their paid PR patsies, including the Director General of Communications at Environment Canada. Why? In my world it’s obvious. But it’s not discussed widely in the media as it involves the psychology of faith and religion on the acceptance of scientific truth, in particular in the realm of the environment and medicine. We all know what the Conservatives really are given their roots and despite their secretive nature. I think it’s time we recognized how and why they are applying that belief structure to the running of our Country and start to fight back - before it's too late.

    Dale Jackaman

  • mikev

    2 years ago

    these are not the muzzles you are looking for

    Scientist: "omg the sky is falling!!!"

    Traslation by PR droid: "Recent scientific research indicates that sometimes the sky is up, sometimes the sky is not quite as up. Environment Canada continues to contribute valuable insight into the current upness of the sky. With more work some day we will be able to say with scientific certainty whether there is any definite trend in any recent changes to the altitude of the sky. In the time being we urge citizens to remain calm. Do not be alarmed if the sky doesn't seem quite as high up in the sky as it did yesterday, there has been no conclusive proof that anyone is any danger. We will make you aware as soon as we are of any further developments."

    So Environment Canada is being approached by the media 35% more, but being quoted by the media 80% less. Wonder why?

    PR mission accomplished!

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Orwellian 'Newspeak' nonsense

    Perhaps Tyee readers recall exactly how 'supportive' Gary Lunn was in this incident:

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080116/keen_fired_080116/20080116

    Or how much he cares about independent science.
    Do these idiots take the whole country for fools?

    DO these PR types remember this incident?

    A British Columbia man was dumped from his role as scientist emeritus with the Geological Survey of Canada for refusing to refer to the federal government as "the new government of Canada."

    Andrew Okulitch said within an hour of sending that message he received an e-mail from an assistant deputy minister telling him he was no longer part of the scientist emeritus program and to clear out his office immediately.

    Is that the kind of 'support' for independent scientific inquiry this government supports.

    One thing I have to give them - these PR Types have some big balls on them - posting this kind of crap on a site like the Tyee takes SOME courage.

    They had to know they were going to get slapped down in public.

  • greengreen

    2 years ago

    Need for CC

    Yes, but what percent of the population reads Tyee? How the _______ do we get this into everyday coffee shop talk etc.? How do we bring this out into the open and convince people how serious of an issue this is?
    How do we reach the "unconverted"? How do we make it impossible for the MSM to ignore this?
    Way past time for some creative communicating techniques.

  • dorothy

    2 years ago

    Update and so forth

    "...refusing to refer to the federal government as "the new government of Canada."

    Well, firstly, he got reinstated. Then, he didn't just 'refuse'. He sent an email to several if not many parties, slamming the directive, which constituted a somewhat unprofessional manner of handling his objection. Demonstrative obsequiousness would have been the intelligent approach. Being a public servant of many years myself, I well know the ins and out of bureaucratic labyrinths, and when all is said and done, I would not adress any of my superiors in the structure in the terms 'the Hel I will; I think it's stupid'. I would chew on it and find a way of gently showing them the error of their ways. Having worked for scientist quite a few of those years I would say some of the people I encountered in that capacity did not understand the particulars of their position as public servants. It's about who pays the bills. If you don't like being dictated anything to, you always have the choice, as I said in the previous blog, of becoming an independent agent, do your own thing on your own time and spending your own dough. Soon as it comes out of public pools, you are answerable to somebody, ususally somebody elected. I cannot imagine that most people would REALLY have it any other way.

  • Bailey

    2 years ago

    Who pays the bills?

    Dear Dorothy;

    "Having worked for scientist quite a few of those years I would say some of the people I encountered in that capacity did not understand the particulars of their position as public servants. It's about who pays the bills. "

    The job title of a public servant seems to indicate that his loyalty, his duty, is not at all to the partisan employer who claims power to bypass the truth on behalf of his political interests. It is the public they serve.

    I would argue strongly that when a politician misbehaves society depends on public servants to protect it's interests by whatever means become necessary.

    I will agree with you that diplomacy is required mostly to accomplish this, but more and more in recent years diplomacy is proving a weak tool for it. The current crop of politicians seem so deeply committed to imposing undemocratic conditions on us, we who pay for it all, that they will commit any transgression, bulldoze anyone, then corrupt the press, the experts we employ, whoever they must to block the truth from coming to our ears.

    All for the sake of ensuring that money and power shall rule absolutely, and move without exception into the offshore accounts of whoever contributes the most to them.

    How should a scientist respond? How should a public servant serve then?

  • katie

    2 years ago

    Defence

    What will the feds do with their ballooned military once Hillary's pleas are unmet and Afghanistan veterans flood home next year? Send them to defend the North. Why else would scientific scrutiny of the North be so deafened right now if not for the Defensive Issue of who will man and clamp down with iron fists on Arctic Soveriegnty. Science, like it or not, will always be the sidekick to armed force..... thank you Einstein for that. What we have here is far from the democratic nation we could feel pride for only ten years ago. The arts are shrinking, healthcare is overfunded and underproductive, banks are wavering, taxes and inflation are on the up and up, and angst is all over public relations. The people can't expect scientists to stop their important work or government to stop politicing, but seriously now....in these "economic times" do we really need to expect any decorum, courtesy or even sincerity (any such thing would be relics of a bygone era).

  • G West

    2 years ago

    This was someone who'd been in the job for years

    He had a reasonable expectation in a system where people are treated with respect and dignity as professionals not to be subjected to political bullshit of the kind of thing Lunn specializes in.

    Lunn reinstated Okulich, but his later treatment of the head of Atomic Energy Canada indicates he and his party had 'learned' nothing from the experience.

    The toady attitude of the two PR trolls who wrote the above 'response' to the original Tyee article further illustrates that these people are:
    1) Not professional;
    2) Overly sensitive to criticism;
    3) Intellectually lightweight; and,
    4) More concerned with pleasing their boss than actually being decent public servants.

    Bailey: Your point about who is meant to 'serve' whom is a very valid one.

  • paisley

    2 years ago

    Public Servant is an oxymoron

    I would consider that a person working as a scientist on the payroll for any government body is just another person working for a paycheck. Their interest is to be employed and earn a living.. .foremost. Where the real action lay is in the upper bureaucracy whose concern is with the political whim of the moment and how they can manipulate those whims for their own personal benefit. They are afforded consecutive after consecutive bosses(politically appointed ministers)whom could not possibly have the slightest idea of the past character or quality of these bureaucrats. Thus we have the breeding ground for corruption within the supposed pinnacle of our society.
    Speaking from experience as I have been a politician and had to endure the blatant lack of responsibility and accountability of these societal leeches I can only say please give me a political leader who could have the fortitude and conviction to repair these lesions of democracy. We are truly rotting from the inside.

  • A Guenther

    2 years ago

    Is this a first?

    Is this a first for the feds to actually send a rebuttal to a story written here?

    greengreen writes,
    "Yes, but what percent of the population reads Tyee?"

    The government thinks The Tyee is influential enough that it may somehow reach those 'unconverted'.

    katie wrote,
    "What will the feds do with their ballooned military once Hillary's pleas are unmet and Afghanistan veterans flood home next year? Send them to defend the North."

    It fits so perfectly... arctic sovereignty to be determined by 2012. Canada has a little more to worry about though, with aboriginals being excluded from the talks, having gone to Hilary with a complaint under international law. They could well unite with the US on this one, and tell Canada to buzz off... especially if they realize the way the Inuit were taken advantage of.

    Quite honestly, the kind of government rebuttal above to a media article, only brings out contempt in me. Contempt for the people who could do no better than write this gullibility saturated drivel above.. a waste of time to read.. an insult to my intelligence.

  • Yeoman

    2 years ago

    There isn't always a conspiracy

    The communications strategy takes on a different flavor when you understand the principle mandate of senior civil servants: Avoid controversy at all costs, even if the short term fix creates a massive long term problem. This includes saying anything that is remotely controversial or provokes tough questions from the media. It's also a case of a culture of micromanagement from the PMO right down to the regional office. Underlings can't be trusted and by getting sign-off at every level from field staff to Director General (on even the smallest thing) the liability for errors is distributed.

  • katie

    2 years ago

    Out of tune

    More civil servants should speak up Yeoman. Why aren't more of you talking? Where's the chorus, seriously?
    If no one cared about the advancement of scientific theories then a neat and curt reply from the ministry might suffice. Though, it is unlikely that such a pert position will be tolerated when the vast majority of government funding is channeled into the sciences, NOT the arts. Talk about a conspiracy....politicians don't speak for science. For heaven sakes, how else dare you call yourself a scientist if you seek to chime in with their overpowering, out of tune key? Look at the facts.... that's all. You should know better.

  • Des

    2 years ago

    It's Somewhat Telling

    that the original Tyee report was challenged by a PR flunky rather than by a scientist - any kind of scientist at all. Just confirms what the report contained.

    The CBC program, Q and Q, dealt with the same problem a few years ago, and showed that Harper and Co. were only interested in Applied Science - science that could be converted into monetary value - rather than in intellectual science dealing with fundamental questions of existence, possibilities and probabilities.

    The Church learned centuries ago that science also speaks truth (the Vatican has operated its own telescopes in Rome, in the USA, etc.) but Harper and Co. don't even know how to fund medical isotope production.

  • RickW

    2 years ago

    Des

    Quote:
    The CBC program, Q and Q, dealt with the same problem a few years ago, and showed that Harper and Co. were only interested in Applied Science - science that could be converted into monetary value

    Which puts some meat behind the saying by Alfred E. Wiggam:
    A conservative is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first time

  • zalm

    2 years ago

    Nice, RickW

    I've heard that quote a couple of times now, and I love it. But who the hell was Alfred E Wiggam?

  • RickW

    2 years ago

    Good Question!

    http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENCA339&q=Alfred+E+Wiggam&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D

    Good question!
    "...a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma..."

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Wiggam

    Not exacly a 'great' man - he was a part of the Eugenics and Racialist movement(s) of the first third of the 20th century in post reconstruction America.

  • Aimless

    2 years ago

    Charles/Mitchell 1, PR flack 0

    Thanks for this telling followup to the empty response from the Director General, Communications, Environment Canada.

    Mr. Slowey, if you care enough to be reading these comments, your department's shielding of government policy is transparent and very much not in the best interest of the Canada.

    As a citizen who pays for that science, i want ALL government employed scientists and technicians to be able to speak honestly and openly to the media -- especially when we are facing as severe a crisis as the climate emergency.

    I guess that you too are getting your orders from above, and are caught in the same vice the scientists are. But that is not an excuse. We must all act with integrity if humanity is to survive the coming years.

    This doubly applies to the present Conservative government.

  • dorothy

    2 years ago

    Sitting on that fence

    "How should a scientist respond? How should a public servant serve then?"

    I think my objection to what is happening now is to the failure in for instance these people who were the original subjects of the article to understand they cannot have it both ways. The public edifice of science and bureaucracy is a veritable fortress. You have to do something almost downright criminal in order to lose your position once you have gained some solid seniority. There are so many benefits to being a member of that exclusive club, that many who belong to it have simply forgotten how life is on the outside for us regular sloggers. The only rule you cannot break is playing by the book. You do not speak for yourself, or as if. The protected status does not include the right to play loose cannon. You have become part of the forces who stand together to protect the integrity of the state apparatus, people's faith in it, and the unity of purpose and orientation this requires.

    If you think your bosses are a bunch of lying scoundrels who misuse their trusted position in keeping a ship afloat that rightfully should be sunk; if you think they're guilty of dereliction of duty and gross deception of the populace, then I believe you must step outside the wall and state your case. This I believe, not just because it is easier on you: You are now not answerable to them any more, but also because you really have limited credibility with the peasants as part of the club! How do we actually know your criticisms aren't just part of some gritty infighting to position yourself in relation to the competition for the next promotion? How do we, in fact, know you're not just posturing on command in order to ferret out the 'dangerous elements' out here, in order to aid the various sorts of fuzz? To go against the people you immediately answer to is an act of such enormity that in order to be credible in doing it, I believe you must detach yourself.

    I am a public servant myself, and while I see the occasional blip on the line, I would not stay where I am, could I not talk to the people I report to about it. If something needs to improve, someone will pick up on it and chip away at it in the bailiwick where I work. I know the outfit well enough to be able to establish the lack of any serious skeletons in the closet. We are all human and therefore imperfect. The thing that counts is how we react to having specific examples of it pointed out.

  • dorothy

    2 years ago

    continued

    Don't get me wrong. I am not a young whipper-snapper, who throws off easy rhetoric. I feel deeply and heartily sorry for scientists who have put years of work into something with faith in what they do and at least some belief in the system they worked for, and who find themselves faced with this kind of crisis of conscience. I can only hope enough of them will divorce themselves, if this is warranted, that it will help tip the balance and see our bureaucracy and politicos show some serious accountability. But I must admit I'm not holding my breath. Meanwhile, try to stick to science, produce data, put them where they cannot be obliterated, and bide your time. Definitely stay out of politics, unless you make a real move.

    I can talk to media, within VERY narrow confines, and it is about learning code language. Speak in highly structured and consistent ways, and people will learn to notice what you're NOT saying. It's like your bank reacting to the absence of $ 00/100 on your cheques, because you have ALWAYS put it in for thirty solid years....

  • Des

    2 years ago

    Scientists

    cannot "sit on the fence" in the way that some government agencies do. Or engage in double talk. Or kowtow to government threats to un-fund their projects. Dorothy seems to have mastered the subservient approach to government and it has served her well enough for 30 years. But science cannot produce selected results that government does not want to hear.

    This federal government does not want 'science' to study how the growth of vegetation within a square metre of arctic soil relates to anthropocentric global warming, but insists that 'science should just get down to work and tell us where the oil is.'

  • RickW

    2 years ago

    G West

    Ah well! At least Wiggam had some pithy sayings.....

  • dorothy

    2 years ago

    'Anthropocentric'??

    Does not compute, honestly. Shouldn't it be 'anthropogenic' if you mean to say that it's generated by people? Your term would indicate that the global warming itself had a mindset, which does not make sense to me, as it is inanimate, a physical parameter. Please clarify...

  • dorothy

    2 years ago

    Doing the job

    The question of subservience or not. It is about whehther you can do your job as you see it. I stated that I can, and the 'apparatus' and its various twists and paranoid flips are so many pebbles in my shoes, which can be shaken out of one end (I don't wear boots!). If you are into the question of actually being asked to do something completely other than your job as you see it, being a Scientist, there's no question. I would step out of that fold and scream it from the rooftops. The job description was obviously deceptive, and I would sue for lost chances of advancing professional standing, as in having wasted my time. Unless you didn't read the fine print on said job description. If it looks too good, it ususally is. Stephen Covey has a thing about climbing to the top and discovering the ladder has been put against the wrong wall...

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.