____________________________________ Commitments to appoint a Chief Science Officer and to bring science into the policy-making arena are positive signals from the new Prime Minister.  But much more will be needed if the Government of Canada is to transparently consider scientific evidence when making decisions.  The whole government has some work to do.A government acting on evidence must do three things: know the science, share the science, and demand an honest response from all stakeholders.First, government decision-makers need to know the science.Scientific experts in government departments should produce a clear-language analysis of the science relevant to each major decision.  That analysis should be included in any document sent to ministers in an “evidence” section and signed off by a qualified scientist.  Likewise, information on the benefits and costs of the options should be clearly explained.  Scientists should brief ministers and all officials who weigh-in on a decision.Of course regulating departments must have the necessary resources.  They need funding to do science, assess the science done by others, keep abreast of international developments and analyze the technologies, costs and benefits of the options.Second, the government must share the science that informs its decisions.Member of Parliament, Senators, stakeholders and the general public all need to know the science behind government proposals, both before and after decisions are made.The government should routinely provide briefings on the science behind key issues.  The briefings should include what is known and what remains uncertain.  If, for example, there is public pressure for action to reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, but the government wants more scientific clarity before acting, it needs to explain what is already known and describe the additional research to be done.Similarly, up-to-date knowledge on marijuana's effects on the teenage brain should be explained and used to shape the discussion.  New medical evidence on the health impacts caused by repeated blows to the head should be taken to sports organizations and parents.If action to protect health or the environment has been taken by other countries, the public deserves to know why the same action should not be taken here.  Europe has banned several pesticides that are still in use in Canada; the scientific differences of opinion should be explained.Nor should the government dodge key questions.  For example, it should stop using the truly uninformative line “there is no evidence that there is a problem with chemical X.”  To be straight with the public, it must say either “we have tested chemical X and found no problem” or “few scientific tests have been done on chemical X so we don't really know”.If there is enough science showing harm to warrant action, then the government needs to give a sound explanation when a decision is made that is not fully protective of the public or the environment.  It may be the case that the cost of emission controls is judged too high or the technologies needed to solve a problem are not yet available.If that's the case, the public needs to know so that individuals can act to reduce the risks to themselves and the environment.  Industries will also know that they need to keep looking for opportunities to reduce emissions.This major effort to share the science behind decisions is the way to increase the science component of political debates.  It goes well beyond “un-muzzling” scientists doing basic research far removed from a current government decision.Finally, the government should expect honesty from all advocacy groups that present information to politicians and the public.  It should make it clear that deceit, cover-ups and sowing public confusion about science are not acceptable for participants in policy debates.Corporations, and those who represent them, should take as much care with the accuracy of their statements on the impact of their products on environmental and health as they do with their financial statements.Financial and environmental reporting requirements are starting to merge.  The New York Attorney General recently forced Peabody Energy, the world's biggest private sector coal company, to make more robust disclosures to its investors about the financial risks it may face from future regulation on climate change.All government departments properly contribute to a well-informed debate.  But none should exaggerate industry concerns or promote cost estimates that have not been independently verified.  None should comment on scientific assessments that are outside its areas of competence.  This may sound obvious, but unfortunately such transgressions have occurred in the past.All of this will demand more of government scientists as politicians ask that complex findings be translated into clear language, judgment calls be fully explained and misleading information be rigorously challenged.It will require the creation of new ground rules and new protocols — perhaps as one of the first tasks for the new Chief Science Officer.  The reward will be more science in political discussions.Marjory Loveys spent ten years as a senior policy advisor in the Office of Prime Minister Jean Chretien.