Canadian Labour Reporter

PD for scientists another key issue for PIPSC embed "scientific integrity" in gov- ernment. Similar deals have been struck in the U.S. and in Europe, according to PIPSC. The union represents more than 15,000 government-em- ployed scientists, researchers and engineers. The proposals in ques- tion would affect the Treasury Board and 40 science-based de- partments and agencies. "By putting these proposals into collective bargaining, they become enforceable rather than just ideas," said Robert MacDon- ald, regional director for PIPSC. If the proposals were integrated into the parties' collective agree- ment, the union could employ the grievance process to ensure the employer is held accountable. "It reduces the risk that ideol- ogy or politics will ignore the facts and compromise scientific stan- dards," MacDonald said. "Because when we compromise those sci- entific standards, we're compro- mising services to Canadians." Nearly one-quarter of federal scientists reported being directly asked to exclude or alter informa- tion for non-scientific reasons, according to the union's survey. Forty-eight per cent of the fed- eral scientists polled said they were aware of actual cases in which their department or agency suppressed information, lead- ing to an incomplete, inaccurate or misleading impression by the public, industry or government officials. "Those are shocking numbers," MacDonald said. "Public scien- tists are paid by the taxpayers. That information should be part of the public domain." However, when the topic was broached in the House of Com- mons on May 26, Robert Goguen — MP for Moncton-Riverview- Dieppe in New Brunswick — ar- gued the dissemination of scien- tific information must be done within the appropriate frame- work. He said scientists must speak publicly within the frame- work of policies and procedures that govern communications within the federal government. "The communications policy of the government of Canada pro- vides other safeguards," Goguen said. "Departmental spokesper- sons, at all times, must respect privacy rights, security needs, matters before the courts, govern- ment policy, cabinet confidences and ministerial responsibility." Goguen argued the framework of these policies is ultimately de- signed to protect the public in- terest. These limitations exist, he said, to ensure communications by public service employees are impartial. "Open government is, among other things, about improving transparency and accountabil- ity in public institutions… Open government and open communi- cations go hand in hand. We will protect, we will promote and we will practice these principles in an intelligent and balanced way." Striking a balance The parties involved need to work together to strike that bal- ance, said Mark Frankel, direc- tor of scientific responsibility, human rights and law program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). He said interference from the federal government has played an important part in scientific work in the past. "There are instances where governments — including the Canadian and U.S. governments — have interfered in the scientific process but, in retrospect, every- one agrees those interferences are acceptable," Frankel said. "For example, the government has policies concerning the use of human subjects in research, so that's an example of interference. But it's clearly an effort by an insti- tution external to science to carry out what it believes is an impor- tant responsibility in protecting citizens." When politics or ideologies be- gin to interfere, however, and the scientific work itself is distorted or undermined, there can be seri- ous ramifications, he said. The work of federal scientists often informs public policy and if the relevant information is cen- sored or distorted, it can lead to policy decisions that negatively impact Canadians. "Public policy affects the citi- zenry of Canada," Frankel said. "The public's interest is best served, I think, if the scientist has the opportunity to explore ave- nues of inquiry that relate to what his or her overall responsibilities are, and to communicate that information to all stakeholders. And the public is a stakeholder in all policy decisions." Because of this, Frankel said the protection of professional devel- opment is equally as important as the protection from censorship. Science is constantly evolv- ing and that makes professional development a crucial aspect of scientific work, particularly when areas of science change so rapidly. "You want your scientists to be at the top of their game, and that means interaction. It's very im- portant because otherwise your government scientists get left be- hind," he said. The right to speak openly about their work — both with the pub- lic and their peers — will ensure federal scientists are informed by the best science, said Frankel, and federal scientists should be en- trusted with the most up-to-date information as their commitment to public service makes them es- pecially suited to work in areas that will inform public policy. However, Frankel wondered whether collective bargaining is the best approach. "To my knowledge, this is a very unique way of trying to accom- plish something that I think most scientists would agree with and support. The catch-22, of course, is what ends up in the collective agreement and… to what extent they will have to give something up to get something," he said. "The mechanism is interest- ing… it's not necessarily a panacea to the problems Canadian scien- tists are facing." 7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 CANADIAN LABOUR REPORTER news < from pg. 1 PIPSC's proposals include protections relating to the public release and public discussion of scientific work, the right to participate in professional development and protections from political interference. Photo: Chaiwat Subprasom (Reuters)

• Cover