The upcoming 45th Canadian federal election promises to shake up the Canadian research sector in significant ways. As incidents of political polarization, online mis/disinformation, and political inference in science continue to increase in frequency, Evidence for Democracy is working to change the public conversation and protect the value and integrity of science and research in this upcoming election year. 

As part of these efforts, E4D launched the Safeguarding Science and Research in an Election Year event series with its flagship event “Reading the Signs – What Does an Election Mean for Research in Canadian Higher Education and Academia?” The panel event brought together expert stakeholders – from U15, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) – for an in-depth conversation on political interference in science, changes in research funding, and calls to action for concerned stakeholders. 

Here are the top three takeaways:

1. Growing Political Interference in Science Requires a United Effort by Stakeholders

Panelists highlighted concerning signs of increased political interference in science and research across Canada. Recent legislation from the Alberta government – titled the Provincial Priorities Act – has reignited provincial interest in controlling access to federal research dollars, a serious concern for Alberta’s institutions and researchers, and one which may present a new precedent for other provincial governments in the coming year. 

U15 Chief Executive Officer, Dr Chad Gaffield, highlighted that the risk of political interference – where politicians desire more control over what types of research receive funding –  may prompt direct backlash from stakeholders and may cause further polarization and alienation between research stakeholders and government policy-makers. Panelists agreed that rather than outright rejecting government involvement, researchers and scientists need to engage in open communication with policy-makers regarding the benefits of independent funding processes. Doing so will help build a more collaborative approach with the government and minimize the risk of further political interference in Canadian research.

Lastly, Dr. Gaffield suggested that in cases where politicians target specific types of research as “unacceptable” based on ideological terms, empirical evidence (such as research data or open transparency into the peer review process) can help debunk claims of ideological bias in how research funding is allocated and counter politicized narratives. 

2. The Research Community Needs to Revamp its Engagement with Government Through Advocacy

The second key takeaway from the event highlighted the crucial importance that effective advocacy has in engaging with government stakeholders. CASA Executive Director, Wasiimah Joomun, highlighted that research advocacy groups need to adjust their messaging to the political landscape, identify stories that resonate with decision-makers, and reframe issues in a way that aligns with government priorities. Panelists also brought up the need for unified advocacy efforts, where research advocates, institutions, and stakeholders should present a unified front in order to better increase influence. The creation of the Coalition for Canadian Research was highlighted as a successful example of stakeholders coming together to realize key investments in research funding from Budget 2024.

Dr Fortin also noted that clear science communication is crucial for influencing public perception and that research advocates need to identify ways to demonstrate the role and value of science in everyday life for Canadians. Strong public support and appreciation for science can also act as a powerful lever for advocacy efforts, especially when direct engagement with government is not possible.

3. How Science Advocates Can Address Misinformation and Build Trust

Panellists brought into focus the critical need to build trust with the public in science. Dr Gaffield illustrated that peer review plays a crucial role in quality control and shoring up credibility for research but that the public is largely unaware of how the process works. Panellists agreed that it is the responsibility of experts to communicate how research funding is carefully allocated and best used to address public interest issues, including healthcare, infrastructure, and affordability. 

However, one key obstacle to building public trust in science is misinformation. Panelists indicated that there is a clear need to tackle misinformation by studying its origins and motivations, which may include political or economic agendas. Further, panellists discussed the need for research advocates and stakeholders to take a strategic approach to address misinformation. This includes engaging experts in public discourse, making research relevant to public issues, and ensuring effective science communication. 

7 Steps You Can Take to Safeguard Science

Overall, panellists identified 7 core Calls to Action that research advocates and stakeholders can implement in order to better safeguard science and research in an upcoming election year:

1. Develop a Unified Narrative with Key Stakeholders
2. Strengthen Media Engagement to Increase Public Awareness and Understanding
3. Conduct National Workshops to Showcase the Value Proposition for Research and Science
4. Engage Diverse Stakeholders to Align Priorities and Foster Collaboration
5. Prepare for Policy Shifts by Building Ongoing Relationships with Policy-Makers
6. Create Ongoing Feedback Mechanisms with the Community & External Stakeholders to Share Progress and Receive Feedback
7. Support Grassroots Advocacy Activities to Empower and Showcase the Research Community

If you’re interested in learning more, check out our Takeaway Report!

Evidence for Democracy will be continuing the Safeguarding Science and Research in an Election Year event series in Spring 2025, so stay tuned for updates!