Lessons for U.S. Government Scientists: Avoiding the ‘Muzzling’ Mistakes of Canada’s Past

There’s no sugarcoating it: The 2024 election was a significant blow for science, the environment, and the advocacy for evidence-based public policies. Many of the accomplishments and protections pursued for years stand on shaky ground as the possibility of destructive and irreversible policies looms. However, by reflecting on history, particularly the experiences faced under Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, strategies can be put in place to prevent a similar fate for U.S. government scientists.

The Canadian Context: Learning from the Harper Years

From 2006 to 2015, Canadian government scientists encountered significant roadblocks. Harper’s administration curtailed their ability to share expertise, forbidding interactions with media or the public — a term known as “muzzling.” Furthermore, libraries were decimated, and the hiring of new talent in critical fields was severely limited. With ideological goals overshadowing facts, the road for science was arduous.

The parallels to what might unfold under Trump’s subsequent administration are undeniable. Attempts to curtail scientific voices have already been observed, with information suppression being a tactic previously employed. As a community, understanding how to navigate these potential challenges is critical.

Strategies for U.S. Government Scientists: Steps to Safeguard Science

Step One: Preserving Crucial Data

Action: Make copies of vital databases, reports, or educational content that could be suppressed under new political directives.

• Collaborate with non-governmental organizations or academic institutions to store essential data securely.
• Prioritize action before administrative changes take effect to ensure preservation.

Step Two: Prepare to Speak Out or Blow the Whistle

Action: Anticipate and prepare to counteract potential muzzling policies aimed at silencing scientific voices.

• Familiarize yourself with the avenues available for safe and anonymous communication with investigative journalism platforms like ProPublica.
• Consider establishing anonymous social media entities to disseminate vital information discreetly.

Step Three: Collaborative Alliances

Action: Engage in partnerships with external scientists to ensure the continuity and publication of research.

• By forming such alliances, findings can be shared by collaborators if restrictions hinder direct communication.
• In cases of potential censorship, consult on removing yourself as an author to facilitate publication.

Step Four: Transparency and Accountability

Action: Illuminate the processes behind regulatory decisions often performed out of public sight.

• Increase public understanding and appreciate how scientific expertise informs and shapes policy.
• Leverage media to highlight the importance of evidence-based decision-making in ensuring societal well-being.

Step Five: Harnessing Bureaucratic Nuances

Action: Use bureaucratic mechanisms to slow the progression of harmful policies.

• Engage in delaying tactics like providing incomplete responses to Freedom of Information requests.
• Recognize and utilize the inherent roadblocks of large administrative bodies to shield sensitive data.

Step Six: Hope Anchored in Resilience

Action: Maintain focus on strategic resilience and collaborative efforts to weather adverse policy shifts.

• Anchor efforts in the anticipation of future political shifts, such as upcoming elections that could pivot congressional control.
• Support lawsuits and actions initiated by external entities to contest anti-scientific regulations.

The Final Word: Embracing the Light at the Tunnel’s End

Maintaining scientific integrity in policy under potentially autocratic governance involves risks — both professional and personal. However, by strategically collaborating, staying resilient, and preparing for advocacy, the scientific community has the power to defend its core values.

Historical precedence suggests that suppression does not last indefinitely, and with cohesive, tactical actions, safeguarding science for future generations is possible.

Further Reading

• The War on Science: Can the U.S. Learn from Canada by Sarah Boon (2017)
• Ending the Donald Trump War on Science by John Dupuis (2020)
• A Survivor’s Guide to Being a Muzzled Scientist by Michael Rennie (2017)

The insights discussed do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of The Revelator or the Center for Biological Diversity, but offer a roadmap of hope and resilience amidst the political challenges of the future.

Source: https://therevelator.org/scientists-muzzling/