The new Liberal government will face challenges in meeting its commitment to make policy decisions transparently and based on evidence. In the final article of a 4-part series entitled "More Science in Politics, Less Politics in Science", author Marjory Loveys lays out some of the challenges expected to arise as the government embraces transparency and follows the evidence when making decisions on environmental and health protection. To view other articles in this series, click here.
____________________________________ When Members of Parliament and Senators face controversial government proposals to reduce industrial emissions or ban chemicals, the government's science-based process will demand they ask tough new questions.Some advocates will produce evidence suggesting there is no need for government action at all; others will present studies to support their position that stronger action is needed than what is being proposed.To determine who is right is seldom easy and never straightforward. For politicians to conduct a debate informed by evidence, they need to judge the science.On occasion, the scientific basis for action will be widely accepted. There is no debate, for example, over the evidence that links smog and kids' visits to hospital emergency rooms.But often legitimate differences will surface. A current example is the debate over studies into the safety of some pesticides for humans and bees.In yet other circumstances, the science will be strong and clear but some advocates will claim otherwise. They might exaggerate uncertainties or take data out of context to sow doubt — tactics still used by opponents of action to address climate change.It is not enough for advocates on either side to throw brickbats at the government's scientific assessments that evaluate all available science before reaching a conclusion. Advocates need to be equally thorough and provide a clear rationale if they differ. A few contrary statements and cherry-picked data are not enough.As they weigh the evidence, MPs and Senators should ask these key questions of both the government and dissenting advocates:
How strong is your scientific case? Conclusions based on just one or two studies are not as strong as those based on several studies that all point in the same direction. Systematic reviews – studies that reach a conclusion based on the combined results of all of the relevant studies – are stronger yet. And not all studies are created equal. Studies that have larger sample sizes, longer duration and find more statistically significant results carry more weight.
How much of the science that supports your position has been reviewed by other scientists? Peer-reviewed work carries more weight.
How much of the science that supports your position has been disclosed? No side should rely on secret studies.
Who paid for the research? Recently a group of U.S. academics, part of the Global Energy Balance Network, produced studies that found increased exercise, not less food, was key to reducing obesity. The network was disbanded after it came to light that Coca-Cola was funding its work.
Is the precautionary principle being used? In accord with that principle, lack of “full scientific certainty” shall not be used to postpone measures to prevent “serious or irreversible” health or environmental impacts. The principle is built into federal laws governing pesticides and environmental contaminants. Governments turn to it when judgment calls are needed on evidence that is incomplete or unknowable, such as the direct effect of toxic chemicals on human health. No scientist is going to administer toxins to people to determine what amount, if any, is harmless.
More contentious than the science, on occasion, is the evidence on the availability and cost of technologies to reduce harm. All sides should disclose their analysis to inform the debate. Again, there are tough questions to ask of both government officials and advocates.
Have you accounted for the ancillary benefits of the latest and cleanest technologies? New equipment that reduces emissions might also reduce waste, be more energy efficient or improve product quality.
Are the estimated costs based on the experience of leading companies, or on laggards that have under-invested in the past? Industry associations may press for weak government action in order to protect only a few companies.
What has been the experience in other countries? If businesses elsewhere managed change at a reasonable cost, companies in Canada should be able to do so as well. Business advocates will often have legitimate concerns about the impacts of a government proposal. In the past, however, they have also lobbied governments aggressively with widely over-estimated costs. It happened in the early 2000s when the government reduced the amount of sulphur in gasoline.Extensively-reviewed science should not be dismissed because of unexamined forecasts of industry costs.In sum, MPs and Senators need to ask tough questions of government officials and advocates on all sides. Only then can they be wise judges of the science, the technologies and the costs. The new process will require resolve and firm conversations. If it sounds like hard work, it is. But it is the only way to get more science in politics ─ and less politics in science.Marjory Loveys spent ten years as a senior policy advisor in the Office of Prime Minister Jean Chretien. To view other articles in this series, click here.