Ten years after the ‘death of evidence,’ scientists again march on Parliament Hill

Ten years ago, thousands of scientists and their supporters marched through Ottawa to Parliament Hill in the "death of evidence" rally. Some wore white coats, while others came in grim reaper costumes, complete with scythes. All came to mourn the demise of science in Canada’s democracy. At the time, research sites were being shuttered and government scientists were being barred from speaking publicly about their work. All in all, science was being wilfully excluded from public policy. In response, Canada’s science community overcame its reluctance to enter the political fray, and stood up for what was missing: evidence-informed policy, transparency, and scientific integrity. Much has changed since (sort of). Farah Qaiser is the director of research and policy at Evidence for Democracy. Photograph courtesy of Evidence for Democracy The death of evidence rallies helped renew attention to the role of science in government. In the last decade, we’ve seen new federal investments in science and research, the reinstatement of a chief science advisor, and the establishment of scientific integrity policies that protect government scientists' right to speak freely. The event also prompted the creation of Evidence for Democracy, a non-partisan non-profit, where we work to promote the transparent use of scientific evidence in government decision-making in Canada. But Canada’s overall progress on its science portfolio is, at best, scattered pieces. Canada is plagued by persistent challenges when it comes to supporting science, ranking consistently in the bottom tier of its peer nations by practically any measure of investment. The Government of Canada’s rollout of scientific integrity policies has not been all sunny ways, with recent reports pointing to science being ignored. And despite the prime minister's repeated commitments to the “use of science and evidence-based decision-making,” the level of transparency needed to evaluate what progress is being made is deeply inadequate. Ten years on from the Death of Evidence, another group of scientists and their supporters are preparing to return to the steps of Parliament with an open letter, spanning over 60 metres. This time, they’re calling on the Government of Canada to pay graduate students and postdoctoral scholars a living wage, as a part of the Support Our Science campaign. Graduate students and postdoctoral scholars are the next generation of scientific talent. They provide the critical ideas, talent, and labour necessary for the majority of post-secondary research conducted in Canada. Rachael Maxwell is the executive director at Evidence for Democracy. Photograph courtesy of Evidence for Democracy In essence, graduate students are research apprentices: in pursuing a master’s or doctoral (PhD) program, they are at the forefront of conducting original research. With a PhD in hand, many graduate students go on to take positions as postdoctoral scholars to further develop their skills and expertise as independent researchers. Some go on to become professors, or bring their talents to advance science in the government, industry, or non-profit sectors. In spite of this crucial role, the value of graduate student and postdoctoral scholarships has remained unchanged for nearly 20 years. As the cost of living in Canada has increased, most government-funded graduate scholarships now amount to less than minimum wage, forcing many into desperate financial circumstances, to seek better funded positions abroad, or leave science and research entirely. This situation is no longer acceptable, and we are not alone in thinking so. Over 7,000 scientists, and supporters, have signed an open letter in support, and are drawing on lessons learned from the past decade, to speak up for science and march on Parliament Hill this Aug. 11. To be clear, there are several existing cracks in the very foundations of the science and research ecosystem in Canada. But these cracks will only widen further if we fail to support the next generation of scientific talent. Without supporting and fostering this next generation, Canada is ill-equipped to tackle the challenges of tomorrow. It also begs the question: how many more warning signs must emerge, and how many more marches must scientists lead, before the Government of Canada takes support for science seriously? If we don't urge action today, the Death of Evidence may very well be the first chapter in the slow death of science in Canada. Farah Qaiser is the director of research and policy at Evidence for Democracy. Rachael Maxwell is the executive director at Evidence for Democracy. The Hill Times

Ten years after the ‘death of evidence,’ scientists again march on Parliament Hill

Canada is plagued by persistent challenges when it comes to supporting science, ranking consistently in the bottom tier of its peer nations by practically any measure of investment.

The Valley of Never-Having-Lived: Canada’s innovation talent problem

Politics This Morning: The sounds of science

Science and research: students will define Canada’s future

The Valley of Never-Having-Lived: Canada’s innovation talent problem

How polls help parties plan policy

Success of the Stephenville project is an important test case for Canada

Good corporate citizenship isn’t a matter of choice

International development: more important than ever for the public and private sectors

How to avoid a war with China

Research funding provides STEM skills that are critical for Canada

Feds risk falling behind on science investment, say policy experts, Naylor, as U.S., U.K., Germany forging ahead

Research on pandemic lessons will get us out of COVID—and the next one

Ottawa must boost financial support for health research for post-pandemic recovery

Why our economy must hang onto PhD graduates

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Ten years after the ‘death of evidence,’ scientists again march on Parliament Hill

Canada is plagued by persistent challenges when it comes to supporting science, ranking consistently in the bottom tier of its peer nations by practically any measure of investment.

Get The Policy Briefings Newsletter