!"#$% '"(%)*+%,-+#.

Simon Fraser University

!"/0$ 1022*
Evidence for Democracy
!"# %!&'#(&%(% %)'"*+
An assessment of media policies in Canadian federal science departments for openness of
communication, protection against political interference, rights to free speech, and protection
for whistleblowers.
Crading communication policies for federal government scientists
,
*-. /01201345
6-207 policies in Canadian federal science departments
were graded for openness of communication, protection
against political interference, rights to free speech,
and protection for whistleblowers. Overwhelmingly,
current media policies do not efectively support open
communication between federal scientists and the media.
Covernment media policies do not support open and
timely communication between scientists and |ournalists
nor do they protect scientists' right to free speech.
Covernment media policies do not protect against
political interference in science communication.
Over 85% of departments assessed (12/14) received a
grade of C or lower.
The Department of National Defence scored top marks
for open communication, while the Canadian Space
Agency, Public Works and Covernment Services Canada,
ndustry Canada and Natural Resources Canada were all
tied for last place with failing grades.
The media policies governing science-based departments
received on average a C- for how well they facilitate open
communication between scientists and the media.
These grades are signifcantly lower than those for federal
agency media policies in the United States in 2008 and
2013 (graded by the Union of Concerned Scientists).
All but one department (Department of National Defence)
scored lower that the United States average in 2013 (as
graded by the Union of Concerned Scientists).
*-. 8-9:;;-127<0:145
1. Make policies easily available online for scientists,
|ournalists and the public.
2. Make it explicit that scientists can speak freely
about their research to facilitate clear and timely
communication between scientists and |ournalists.
3. Cive scientists the right to have the fnal review of the
scientifc content of media products (e.g. press releases)
that make substantial use of their work to protect
against political interference.
4. nclude a 'personal-views exception' to allow scientists
to express their personal opinions in a professional and
respectful manner as long as they make clear they are
not representing the views of their department.
5. nclude provisions to protect whistleblowers and
efectively resolve disputes.
Federal government scientists play an important role in
keeping Canadians safe and healthy by providing their
expertise to both the public and decision-makers. The
safety of our food, air, water, and environment depends
on the ability of federal scientists to provide information
to Canadians. Federal scientists also review and regulate
thousands of consumer and industrial products, including
pesticides and medicines.
!"#$%&#'&' )*$ &+$ ,$'& '-./$'-$.-0$ 1.* &+$#* .2% 2.*/
)%34 ,)**#%5 *)*$ #%'&)%"$' 2+$*$ #%1.*6)&#.% #' +#5+07
'$%'#&#8$4 #& #' $''$%&#)0 &+)& &+$7 ,$ ),0$ &. ".669%#")&$
&+$#* $:-$*&#'$ &. &+$ 6$3#) )%3 &+$ -9,0#";
Scientists are the best spokespeople for their own work and,
barring rare instances where information is highly sensitive, it is
essential that they be able to communicate their expertise to the
media and the public. When scientists converse directly with the
media, the public gains a better understanding of how science is
being used for government decision-making, and is consequently
better able to hold their government accountable. nformation
must be timely, accurate, and governed by strong external
communication policies that help scientists communicate their
work. The public also has a right to this essential, taxpayer-
funded information. Recognizing this, the Communications Policy
of the Covernment of Canada states that, "Canadians value
freedom, openness, security, caring and respect. t is important
for their government to communicate in a spirit that refects
those values."
<
Over the past several years, Canadian scientists working
in the federal government have experienced a substantial
shift in the way they can communicate their research to the
public and the media. Reports of widespread muzzling and
delayed access to Canadian government scientists have been
covered in prominent national and international media.
=4>4?4@4A4B
Extensive coverage and concern prompted the nformation
Commissioner of Canada to pursue an investigation, currently
ongoing, into the alleged muzzling of scientists.
C
A recent survey
by Environics Research Croup and the Professional nstitute of
the Public Service of Canada (PPSC) fnds similar sentiments
among the scientists themselves, showing that 90% of federal
scientists feel they are not able to speak freely about
their research.
D4 <E
When federal scientists are prevented from communicating
their work, it denies the public access to vital information
required for informed decisions. Perhaps more pressing,
however, is the fact that when the public cannot access this
information, it is increasingly dimcult to determine whether
government decisions are being supported by the best available
science. Science itself also thrives on transparency: science is
strengthened when there is open dialogue stimulating debate
and fruitful collaborations among scientists.
3"% 450$%/0*/* 46$"78
To gain a better understanding of how federal scientists are
able to communicate their work to the media, we studied
the media policies that govern them. Our protocol was
slightly modifed from that used by the Union of Concerned
Scientists in the U.S.
<<
6-<=:24
We reviewed all government-wide and department-level
policies that determine the nature of the interaction
between federal scientists and the media for 16 science-
based federal departments
#
. Adapting methods from
the Union of Concerned Scientists
<<4<=
we assessed each
department based on fve key questions:
1. s the policy accessible, current, clear, and consistent7
2. Does it promote open and timely communication with
the media7
3. Does it safeguard against political interference7
4. Does it protect scientifc free speech7
5. Does it include provisions to protect whistleblowers and
efectively resolve disputes7
We answered these fve questions for each department
using a set of 14 sub-criteria. Marks were assigned to
each criterion and the total score was converted to a
letter grade (for details on grading criteria, scoring, and
the assignment of letter grades, see the Detailed Methods
Appendix, available online at evidencefordemocracy.ca/
canscientistsspeak/appendix). Our grading results establish
a baseline assessment that can be expanded upon in future
studies, and provides a straightforward comparison with
government media policies in the United States.
%9:>013 8?@>09
Media policies were graded out of 95 points. Scores were
then used to generate a letter grade for each department.
1. 955$**02:$; 3)##$%/; 3:$"# "%. 3+%*0*/$%/ <=> 6+0%/*?
a. Publicly available on the agency/department website (5).
b. Clear and consistent (5).
c. Updated in the past 10 years (5).
2. @#+A+/$* B6$%%$** "%. C0A$:0%$** <DE 6+0%/*?
a. Explicitly calls for open communications between
agency employees and the public (15).
b. Ensures timely responses to interview requests
and quick release of press releases or agency
communications (5).
3. 4"F$()"#.* 9("0%*/ @+:0/05": G%/$#F$#$%5$ <D> 6+0%/*?
a. Does not require pre-approval for contact with the
media (5).
b. Does not re-direct media requests to approved
department spokespeople (5).
c. No required clearance for interview questions (5).
d. Does not require public afairs omcials to sit in on
interviews with scientists (5).
e. Specifes that only scientists, or those with the
necessary technical expertise, may edit the scientifc
content of agency communications (5).
4. Protects 5cientic Free 5peech (30 points)
a. Explicitly permits employees to speak about their
personal views (15).
b. Explicitly permits employees to review the fnal
version of documents that make use of their
expertise (15 points).
5. H$*+:)/0+% +F .0*6)/$* "%. 6#+/$5/0+% F+#
whistleblowers (5 points)
a. Cives protections for whistleblowers, or,
alerts employees to their rights under federal
whistleblower law (3 points).
b. Defnes a process for resolving disputes about
media contacts or relations (2 points).
@+:05I J$#*)* 6#"5/05$
There are often considerable diferences between the
text of media policies, and the way those policies are
implemented. A good media policy can only support
efective science communication when there is also a
strong commitment from department managers to put
the policy into practice and to continuously evaluate
and improve it. This report only looks at the policies and
does not attempt to assess current media practices. A
recent survey of federal government scientists suggests
that there are some serious concerns around media
practices - nearly half of the respondents felt that
their communications department is not efective at
responding to the media with scientifcally defensible and
accurate information.
D
mprovements to media policies
will not be efective unless current practices and self-
censorship among scientists are also addressed directly.
#
F$ #%"093$3 << '"#$%"$G,)'$3 3$-)*&6$%&'4 > )5$%"#$'4 < ".66#''#.% HI)%)3#)% J9"0$)* !)1$&7 I.66#''#.%K4 )%3 < I*.2% ".*-.*)&#.% HL&.6#" M%$*57 .1 I)%)3)
N&3;K; O+*.95+.9& &+#' *$-.*& 2$ 9'$ &+$ &$*6 P3$-)*&6$%&Q ,*.)3074 #%"09'#8$ .1 )00 &+$'$ .*5)%#R)&#.%';
Crading communication policies for federal government scientists
A
Canadian federal departments and agencies score, on
average, a C- in their communication policies. Overall,
media policies do not adequately support efective science
communication and lack essential elements for facilitating
open and timely communication between government
scientists and the media.
When examining each of the fve criteria independently, we found:
!?>>-1< 712 "99-440@B- !:;;?1097<0:14 ):B090-4
Most policies have been recently developed or updated
and clearly outline the responsibilities of scientists and
communications personnel. However, most of the media
policies are not easily available online and had to be
obtained through access to information requests. Of the 16
departments evaluated, only the Department of National
Defence and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat had
policies that are publicly available online. Others may be
available online but we were not able to locate them despite
a diligent search.
CD-1 712 (0;-B. "99-44 <: %90-1<04<4
While many departments include statements supporting
open communication, the procedures for handling media
inquiries do not facilitate open and timely access to scientists
(see below for details).
H$*):/*
4)AA"#I +F *5+#$*
for each departmentlagency 9
5
5
$
*
*
0
2
:
$
;

3
)
#
#
$
%
/
;


3
:
$
"
#
;

"
%
.

3
+
%
*
0
*
/
$
%
/

<
=
>
?
@
#
+
A
+
/
$
*

B
6
$
%
%
$
*
*


"
%
.

C
0
A
$
:
0
%
$
*
*

<
D
E
?
4
"
F
$
(
)
"
#
.
*

9
(
"
0
%
*
/


@
+
:
0
/
0
5
"
:

G
%
/
$
#
F
$
#
$
%
5
$

<
D
>
?
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
s

5
c
i
e
n
t
i

c


F
r
e
e

5
p
e
e
c
h

(
3
0
)
K
0
*
6
)
/
$

H
$
*
+
:
)
/
0
+
%

"
%
.

W
h
i
s
t
l
e
b
l
o
w
e
r

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
5
)
C
+
/
"
:

4
5
+
#
$

<
B
)
/

+
F

L
>
?
C
+
/
"
:

4
5
+
#
$

<
M
?
N
$
/
/
$
#

1
#
"
.
$
Department of National Defence 13 20 23 10 5 71 75 B
National Research Council Canada 12 20 12 17 5 66 69 C+
Fisheries and Oceans Canada 12 20 7 15 5 59 62 C
Health Canada and the Public Health
Agency of Canada
10 20 3 17 5 55 58 C-
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada* 12 17 11 10 5 55 58* C-
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission* 12 17 11 10 5 55 58* C-
Transport Canada* 12 17 11 10 5 55 58* C-
Canadian Food nspection Agency 11 17 5 15 5 53 56 C-
Environment Canada 12 17 13 5 5 52 55 C-
Aboriginal Afairs and Northern
Development Canada
8 17 9 10 5 49 52 D
Canadian Space Agency 10 12 9 10 4 45 47 F
Public Works and Covernment Services
Canada
12 17 2 10 3 44 46 F
ndustry Canada 8 5 9 10 5 37 39 F
Natural Resources Canada 7 10 4 10 5 36 38 F
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited - - - - - - nc. nc.
*The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) policies were used to assess Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission, and Transport Canada. due to the absence of media policies for these departments. nc. = ncomplete.
3"% 450$%/0*/* 46$"78
):B0<097B &1<->E->-19-
n many media policies, the process outlining how scientists
should interact with the media does not protect against, and
may even lend itself to, political interference. Often scientists
require approval from their department's media relations
omcers to speak with the media, and questions and answers
need to be pre-approved for interviews. Only the Department
of National Defence does not require that scientists get pre-
approval before connecting with media. None of the policies
examined include explicit provisions for scientists to have the
fnal review of the scientifc content of media products that
make use of their research, something which is necessary to
ensure their work is accurately communicated.
)->4:17BFG0-H4 'I9-D<0:1
Best practices for open science communication recognize
the importance of scientists' right to express their personal
opinions, as long as they make clear that they are not speaking
as omcial representatives of the department (e.g. a 'personal-
views exception'). Despite the fact that all federal scientists
must abide by their 'duty of loyalty' to the government (see
side box), this does not preclude scientists from expressing
their views respectfully and professionally. This freedom
is aforded scientists in many other |urisdictions including
the U.S. This kind of open dialogue promotes public trust in
government science and facilitates government transparency
(a critical feature of a healthy democracy). Personal-views
exceptions also protect the government by requiring that
scientists acknowledge that their views do not necessarily
represent the views of the department.
Scientists' right to express their personal opinions was
largely absent from the media policies. The only exception
was the National Research Council policy, which includes a
clear personal-views exception. n the case of Environment
Canada, this right is explicitly denied.
##
J04D?<- 8-4:B?<0:1 712 K=04<B-@B:H-> )>:<-9<0:1
An integral aspect of establishing good communication
practices among government employees is ensuring that,
when conficts arise, there are procedures in place for
resolving disputes fairly and protecting whistleblowers
from reprisal. We found that while these topics were not
explicitly addressed in media communication policies,
they were usually (and commendably) addressed in
departmental values and Ethics Codes, which have been
developed in response to the Public Servants' Disclosure
Protection Act.
<?
n particular, the department of Public
Works and Covernment Services Canada has developed a
guideline that highlights whistleblower protections at the
departmental level, and Health Canada provides a thorough
list of department contacts relating to confict resolution
and whistleblowing.
We note, however, that other studies looking at whistle-
blowing have found Canada remains far behind other
countries in providing efective measures to protect those
who speak out.
<@4<A
n addition, Canadian federal scientists
overwhelmingly agree that the public would be better served
if federal whistleblower policies were strengthened.
D
Support
for dedicated whistleblower protections was highest among
scientists surveyed at the Canadian Space Agency
D
, which is
the only department that does not explicitly state protections
for whistleblowers in their values and Ethics Code.
K)/I +F N+I":/I
The values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector
applies to all public servants and outlines fve
key principles that should guide their behaviour
throughout all aspects of their work.
<>
One of these
principles is 'Respect for Democracy', which includes
the tenet, "Public servants shall uphold the Canadian
parliamentary democracy and its institutions
by loyally carrying out the lawful decisions of
their leaders and supporting ministers in their
accountability to Parliament and Canadians."
This duty of loyalty implies some limits on how public
servants express criticisms of the government.
OH3 @$#*+%": B60%0+% 4/"/$A$%/
"t is recognized that all employees have the right to
their personal points of view regarding any issue.
However, personal opinions may confict with NRC's
omcial position. Therefore, . an employee may not
identify him or herself as an NRC employee in any
letter or email to the editor, and he or she must
include language which states the views set forth are
the employee's personally held opinions, not those of
the organization."
##
!$$ -)5$ <>4 !"#$%&#'&'Q 1*$$3.6 .1 $:-*$''#.% #' +#%3$*$3 ,7 6$3#) -.0#"#$';
Crading communication policies for federal government scientists
L
Next we discuss each department's individual performance. For three
departments that do not have departmental policies (Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and Transport Canada), we
used the broad, government-wide policy to complete their assessment. These
departments are therefore grouped together under the Treasury Board of
Canada Secretariat. For a full description of how the grades were assigned, see
the Detailed Methods Appendix.
!:;D7>04:1 <: MN%N 6-207 ):B090-4
When compared to communication policies in the U.S. (scoring an average of B-),
Canadian policies lag far behind in their ability to facilitate open and timely
communication between |ournalists and federal scientists, to incorporate measures
that safeguard against political interference, and to protect scientists' right to free
speech <-0()#$ =?.
6-207 ):B09. %9:>-4 01 <=- MN%N 712 !71727
<EE
DE
CE
BE
AE
@E
?E
>E
S%";
H"%7 B#.$#
L8$*)5$
L8$*)5$
L8$*)5$
5
c
o
r
e

(
l
1
0
0
)
Canada 2014
U.S. 2008
U.S. 2013
-0(P =P
T$3#) -.0#"7 '".*$' 1.* U%#&$3 !&)&$' 1$3$*)0 )5$%"#$' #% =EEC )%3 =E<> )%3 1.* I)%)3#)% 1$3$*)0
3$-)*&6$%&' #% =E<?; U;!; 3)&) 2$*$ ".00$"&$3 ,7 &+$ U%#.% .1 I.%"$*%$3 !"#$%&#'&';
<<4<=
V.* $)"+
)%)07'#'4 3$-)*&6$%&' 2$*$ .*3$*$3 1*.6 ,$'& H+#5+$'& '".*$K &. 2.*'& H0.2$'& '".*$K; O+$*$ 2$*$
1.9* )5$%"#$' HL&.6#" M%$*57 .1 I)%)3) N&3;4 &+$ J)&#.%)0 !"#$%"$ V.9%3)&#.% H=EECK4 &+$ V..3
)%3 W*95 L36#%#'&*)&#.% H=EECK4 )%3 &+$ W$-)*&6$%& .1 M%$*57 H=E<>KK &+)& '".*$3 XS%".6-0$&$Y;
!".*$' 2$*$ ".%8$*&$3 &. ,$ .9& .1 <EE -.#%&' 1.* ".6-)*#'.% 2#&+ &+$ U;!; O+$ ".6-0$&$ '$& .1
3$-)*&6$%& )%3 )5$%"7 '".*$' ")% ,$ 1.9%3 #% &+$ W$&)#0$3 T$&+.3' L--$%3#:;
3"% 450$%/0*/* 46$"78
O
/>:; conducting research about the
impacts of climate change on shipping
routes to responsible resource
development, AANDC scientists are
a small but crucial group that work
towards economic and environmental
sustainability in Canada's Arctic. The
AANDC Media Policy and Procedure
outlines the roles for communications
staf and departmental spokespeople.
Notably, it implies that scientists
should be involved in media relations
by acknowledging that media relations
omcers are not the content experts.
t also includes a fast-track approval
process to ensure nterview request
approvals are obtained within a one-
day news cycle. However, AANDC
almost received a failing grade because
of policies that do not adequately
support scientists' right to free speech
and that place many restrictions on
how they interact with the media.
Designated spokespeople are
reminded to "confne remarks to
matters of fact," and there is no
direction given for non-spokespeople
on how to express personal opinions.
The media policy also requires that
media lines and talking points undergo
several rounds of approvals.
9QBHG1GO9N 9--9GH4 9OK OBHCRSHO
KSTSNB@'SOC 39O9K9 <99OK3? J
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& CZ<@
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' <BZ=E
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ DZ=@
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech <EZ>E
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% @Z@
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ >DM
8-9:;;-127<0:145
Clarify the process that non-spokesperson scientists should follow when
interacting with media.
Clearly state that employees may speak freely as long as they
acknowledge that their views do not represent those of the department.
Reduce the number of approvals for media correspondence. This will
encourage open communication and reduce the opportunity for
political interference.
W$'#5%)&$3 '-./$'-$.-0$ )*$
ren|nded |o 'conne renarks
&. 6)&&$*' .1 1)"&4Y )%3 &+$*$
#' %. 3#*$"&#.% 5#8$% 1.* %.%G
'-./$'-$.-0$ .% +.2 &. $:-*$''
-$*'.%)0 .-#%#.%'; O+$ 6$3#)
-.0#"7 )0'. *$^9#*$' &+)& 6$3#)
0#%$' )%3 &)0/#%5 -.#%&' 9%3$*5.
'$8$*)0 *.9%3' .1 )--*.8)0';
Crading communication policies for federal government scientists
9CB'G3 SOSH1U
B- 39O9K9 NG'GCSK <9S3N? &#!C6)P'('
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& S%".6-0$&$
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' S%".6-0$&$
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ S%".6-0$&$
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech S%".6-0$&$
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% S%".6-0$&$
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ G%5+A6:$/$
8-9:;;-127<0:145
Develop a formal media policy to facilitate transparency and support
scientists in their communication with the media.
###
Sc|en||c and proess|ona| enp|oyees are dened as, 'peop|e |n obs |ha| reqd|re a| |eas| one acaden|c deree or na||ona||y recon|.ed proess|ona| qda||ca||on,
)' 2$00 )' &+.'$ 2#&+ $^9#8)0$%& $:-$*#$%"$;Y
<B
"'!P is the Crown corporation responsible
for advancing Canada's nuclear science
and technology goals, and employs more
than 1300 scientists.
###
Their work ranges
from handling nuclear waste products
to producing medical isotopes. AECL
does not have a formal media policy
or code of values and ethics that
governs employees' interactions with
the media. As a Crown corporation,
AECL is not required to adhere to
the Communications Policy of the
Covernment of Canada.
The requirement by the Public Servants
Disclosure Protection Act to develop
a Code of values and Ethics also does
not apply to Crown corporations. We
could not formally assess AECL due to
incomplete information.
O+$ *$^9#*$6$%& ,7 &+$ [9,0#"
!$*8)%&' W#'"0.'9*$ [*.&$"&#.%
L"& &. 3$8$0.- ) I.3$ .1 _)09$'
)%3 M&+#"' )0'. 3.$' %.& )--07 &.
I*.2% ".*-.*)&#.%'; F$ ".903
%.& 1.*6)007 )''$'' LMIN 39$ &.
#%".6-0$&$ #%1.*6)&#.%;
3"% 450$%/0*/* 46$"78
!/&" employs over 500 veterinary
scientists and over 600 biologists
#8
who
work to ensure the safety of Canadians'
food. CFA is one of |ust four federal
departments that has developed a
policy on the Responsible Conduct
of Research and Development. t
highlights freedom from political
interference for science conducted at
CFA, stating, "we do not manipulate
science to achieve a desired outcome
but acknowledge that other factors
must be taken into account in this
decision making." t also supports
scientists' right to access, edit, and
review documents that make use of
their research.
The CFA Overview of Media Relations
and Cuide for Spokespersons,
however, ensures all media inquiries
are routed through media relations
and are sub|ect to approval.
t also emphasizes the control of media
relations during interviews, stating
that media relations omcers (MROs)
"monitor the interview to ensure it runs
smoothly (MROs will intervene when
need be)."
39O9KG9O -BBK
GO4@S3CGBO 91SO3U <3-G9? !F
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& <<Z<@
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' <BZ=E
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ @Z=@
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech <@Z>E
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% @Z@
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ >VM
8-9:;;-127<0:145
Clarify which media inquiries require a designated spokesperson
(and when approvals are needed).
nstead of interview monitoring, CFA staf should notify media relations of
a pending media communications and provide a summary thereafter.
#8
The ndnber o d||||ne eqd|va|en| enp|oyees a| CF/ |n |hese sc|ence pos|||ons was ob|a|ned |hrodh an /ccess |o norna||on reqdes| or |he sca| year
=E<=G=E<>; O+#' #%1.*6)&#.% 2)' %.& )8)#0),0$ &+*.95+ !&)&#'&#"' I)%)3)
<B
):B09. 01 )>79<09-
DA` .1 '"#$%&#'&' '9*8$7$3 )*$
%.& ),0$ &. '-$)/ 1*$$07 &. &+$
6$3#) ),.9& &+$ 2.*/ &+$7 3.
)& IVSL;
D
O+#' 2)' &+$ +#5+$'&
-$*"$%&)5$ .1 )%7 3$-)*&6$%&
'9*8$7$3;
Crading communication policies for federal government scientists
QQ
(=- CSA is a small agency with a
big mission as their scientists work
to advance space exploration. The
CSA media policy includes several
restrictions, such as "the appropriate
authorities" must approve all
information released to the media,
interview requests are sub|ect to
approval, and all news releases and
media advisories must be approved by
media relations.
The CSA media policy makes no
reference to scientists' right to free
speech nor to their right to have the
fnal review on media documents that
make use of their work. There are no
instructions on how employees who
are not omcial spokespeople should
interact with the media.
39O9KG9O 4@93S 91SO3U <349? /
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& <EZ<@
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' <=Z=E
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ DZ=@
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech <EZ>E
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% ?Z@
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ WXM
8-9:;;-127<0:145
Reduce and clarify the number of approvals required throughout the
media relations process.
nclude the rights of scientists to speak freely and review documents that
make use of their work.
Outline procedures for non-omcial spokespersons.
O+$ I!L 6$3#) -.0#"7 6)/$' %.
*$1$*$%"$ &. '"#$%&#'&'Q *#5+& &.
1*$$ '-$$"+ )%3 &+$#* *#5+& &.
have |he na| rev|ew on ned|a
3."96$%&' &+)& 6)/$ 9'$ .1
&+$#* 2.*/;
3"% 450$%/0*/* 46$"78
QR
!71727S4 national security and
defence programs depend on high
quality research in areas such as
communications networks and
personnel protection. DND received
the highest grade in our assessment,
scoring a B grade (|ust above the average
grade for U.S. agencies in 2013)
<=
. The
DND media policy includes a number
of elements that other departments
should strive towards, including fewer
restrictions on scientists' ability to
communicate their research, and clearly
defned roles and responsibilities for
employees, spokespeople, and media
relations personnel.
The media policy does not require
inquiries to be routed to Public Afairs
(PA) but scientists "can seek advice and
support from PA through their chain of
command, when desired or if in doubt
about how to respond." This approach
empowers employees to interact
positively with the media.
However, the DND policy does not
include a personal-views exception
and states that employees speaking
in omcial capacity must not "speculate
about events, incidents, issues or future
policy decisions or ofer personal
opinion on government, DND, or
Canadian Forces".
While the right of scientists to have
the fnal review is included within the
Defence Research and Development
agency's Publishing Reference Manual
(still in the draft stage), this does not
apply to media products.
KS@9HC'SOC B-
O9CGBO9N KS-SO3S <KOK? T
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& <>Z<@
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' =EZ=E
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ =>Z=@
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech <EZ>E
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% @Z@
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ X>M
8-9:;;-127<0:145
ncorporate explicit statements regarding scientists' right to speak freely
and their right to have the fnal review specifcally for media products.
O+$ 6$3#) -.0#"7 3.$' %.&
*$^9#*$ #%^9#*#$' &. ,$ *.9&$3 &.
Pdb||c /a|rs ,P/) bd| sc|en||s|s
X")% '$$/ )38#"$ )%3 '9--.*&
1*.6 [L &+*.95+ &+$#* "+)#% .1
".66)%34 2+$% 3$'#*$3 .* #1 #%
3.9,& ),.9& +.2 &. *$'-.%3;Y
O+#' )--*.)"+ $6-.2$*'
$6-0.7$$' &. #%&$*)"& -.'#&#8$07
2#&+ &+$ 6$3#);
Crading communication policies for federal government scientists
Q,
C1- of the biggest employers of
scientists in the federal government,
EC is tasked with protecting our natural
environment and providing weather
information. EC's media policy has
previously come under scrutiny
>4<C

and its ranking is comparatively low
due to a restrictive policy that focuses
on message control rather than
supporting efective communication.
Scientists must refer all media inquiries
to the media relations omce and are
not to respond until given approval by
a media relations omcer. t is not clear
when media relations will collaborate
with the scientists or direct the call to
a spokesperson.
Scientists' freedom of speech is not
well supported by the EC media
relations policy. Speaking in omcial
capacity, spokespeople are asked
not to ofer personal opinion on
government, or EC policy. The media
policy does not mention scientists' right
to fnal review, although it is mentioned
in the EC Publishing Policy (which does
not apply to media products).
SOTGHBO'SOC 39O9K9 <S3? !F
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& <=Z<@
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' <BZ=E
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ <>Z=@
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech @Z>E
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% @Z@
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ >>M
8-9:;;-127<0:145
Remove the requirements that all employees must seek approval before
speaking with the media and that all inquiries must be directed to an
approved spokesperson.
Add statements that support scientists' right to speak freely and their right
to fnal review.
D<` .1 '"#$%&#'&' )& M%8#*.%6$%&
I)%)3) 3. %.& 1$$0 &+)& &+$7 ")%
'+)*$ ".%"$*%' 2#&+ &+$ -9,0#"
.* 6$3#) ),.9& 3$-)*&6$%&)0
3$"#'#.%' &+)&4 ,)'$3 .% &+$#*
sc|en||c know|ede, cod|d br|n
+)*6 &. &+$ -9,0#" #%&$*$'&4
2#&+.9& 1$)* .1 "$%'9*$ .*
*$&)0#)&#.% 1*.6 &+$ 3$-)*&6$%&;
D
450$%/0*/*Y F#$$.+A +F
expression is hindered
2I A$.0" 6+:050$*
Environment Canada's
Media Relations Policy
notes that when scientists
attend conferences where
they expect to interact with
the media, they frst need
to contact media relations
omcers to determine if there
are any "potential issues." f
permission is given, scientists
may speak to the media
without an approval for each
individual media request, but
they must "speak only to the
science or technical aspect at
hand."
3"% 450$%/0*/* 46$"78
QU
/>:; developing nautical charts to
ecosystem-based research, DFO scientists
maintain safe waterways and sustainable
ocean resources. With one of the most
comprehensive media policies, DFO ranks
third of the 16 departments assessed.
DFO's media policy supports scientists'
involvement in developing messages
for media, and implies (but does not
explicitly articulate) employees' right to
fnal review. The Publishing Policy and
Cuidelines (Communications Branch)
emphasizes that authors must approve
any edited text, since they are responsible
for its content. All DFO policies evaluated
emphasize the importance of openness
in communications with the media and
the public.
Nonetheless, interactions between
employees and the media are highly
controlled. f an employee receives
a media request directly, they are to
immediately advise communications
staf, implying that approval is needed.
Media inquiries must be directed to
designated spokespersons and Q & A's
need to be pre-approved.
Although the media policy states that
scientists should avoid discussion of
personal opinion, the values & Ethics
Code acknowledges that a balance
must be achieved between upholding
employees' freedom of speech and their
duty of loyalty.
-G4RSHGS4 9OK B3S9O4 39O9K9 <K-B? !
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& <=Z<@
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' =EZ=E
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ BZ=@
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech <@Z>E
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% @Z@
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ VDM
8-9:;;-127<0:145
Remove the restrictions that media inquiries must be routed to
designated spokespersons and that Q & A's must be pre-approved before
interviews.
nclude a personal-views exception statement to clarify how employees
may express their opinions.
):B09. V4N )>79<09-
W$'-#&$ WV\Q' ".6-)*)&#8$07
+#5+ '".*$4 WV\ '"#$%&#'&' #%
&+#' 3$-)*&6$%& )*$ &+$ 0$)'&
sa||sed w||h |he way |he
1$3$*)0 5.8$*%6$%& )%3 WV\
".669%#")&$' .* ,*.)3")'&'
&+$ *$'90&' .1 &+$#* 2.*/ &.
&+$ 6$3#) .* 5$%$*)0 -9,0#"4
".6-)*$3 &. )%7 .&+$*
3$-)*&6$%& '9*8$7$3;
D
Crading communication policies for federal government scientists
QA
W! employs more than 2000 scientists
who conduct key research on food and
drug safety, hazardous substances,
and biotechnology. PHAC is a smaller
organization that conducts research
on issues ranging from prevention
and control of disease outbreaks to
enhancing public health programs.
As these two organizations share
communication services and policies,
they were assessed together.
Overall, they promote the involvement
of scientists in creating media products
and include language supporting
open and timely communication. Both
departments support scientists' right
to fnal review. The PHAC publishing
policy is particularly supportive of
scientists, highlighting that supporting
and communicating government policy
must be balanced with the need to
contribute knowledge openly and "to
nurture the careers of its scientists."
The publishing policy also protects the
integrity of scientifc manuscripts by
explicitly stating that recommendations
for changes "do not alter the fndings
of the research."
However, there are several key
restrictions. All media inquiries are
to be directed immediately to media
relations, who will then decide the
appropriate response. Only approved
spokespeople may speak with the
media, using approved messages.
Assessments are made to determine if
interview requests are granted, but this
process was not outlined in the policies
we obtained. All granted interviews
need to be monitored by a media
relations omcial.
RS9NCR 39O9K9 <R3? 9OK @ZQNG3
RS9NCR 91SO3U B- 39O9K9 <@R93? !F
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& <EZ<@
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' =EZ=E
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ >Z=@
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech <BZ>E
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% @Z@
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ >[M
8-9:;;-127<0:145
Reduce restrictions on scientist-media interactions to facilitate the
open communication that Health Canada recommends in its Scientifc
ntegrity Policy.
ncrease the transparency of criteria used for approving spokespeople and
granting interviews.
(0;-B. !:;;?1097<0:1
a$)0&+ I)%)3) &)/$' #&'
".66#&6$%& &. &#6$07
".669%#")&#.% '$*#.9'07b &+$
'-./$'-$*'.%' -.0#"7 '&)&$'
&+)& 6$3#) #%^9#*#$' '+.903 ,$
)"/%.20$35$3 2#&+#% .%$ +.9*
)%3 &+$ !&)%3)*3 \-$*)&#%5
[*."$39*$ %.&$' &+)& 6)%7 .1
&+$ *$^9#*$3 )--*.8)0' %$$3 &.
,$ .,&)#%$3 2#&+#% ?@ 6#%9&$';
3"% 450$%/0*/* 46$"78
QX
%90-1<04<4 employed at C are mainly
concentrated at the Communications
Research Centre of Canada (CRC). This
organization works to improve Canada's
wireless communication through
research in satellite communications
and networks technologies. CRC media
guidelines are brief and focus on
ensuring that media inquiries are frst
routed to the media relations division
for approval and then responded to by
a designated spokesperson.
While media relations staf are
encouraged to work with the
researcher to develop key messages,
the CRC policy provides very little
detail about the nature of the
approval process and the roles and
responsibilities of scientists.
GOKZ4CHU 39O9K9 <G3? /
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& CZ<@
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' @Z=E
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ DZ=@
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech <EZ>E
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% @Z@
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ 39%
8-9:;;-127<0:145
Develop a departmental policy that applies to all employees and clearly
outlines the roles and responsibilities of employees, spokespersons, and
media relations.
\h||e ned|a re|a||ons s|a
)*$ $%".9*)5$3 &. 2.*/ 2#&+
&+$ *$'$)*"+$* &. 3$8$0.- /$7
6$'')5$'4 &+$ *$0$8)%& -.0#"7
-*.8#3$' 8$*7 0#&&0$ 3$&)#0 ),.9&
&+$ %)&9*$ .1 &+$ )--*.8)0
-*."$'' )%3 &+$ *.0$' )%3
*$'-.%'#,#0#&#$' .1 '"#$%&#'&'
Crading communication policies for federal government scientists
QL
K0<= more than 1300 scientists on
staf, NRC research ranges from
vaccine development to bioenergy.
NRC stands out from many other
departments in both their media policy
and their Research ntegrity Policy. The
NRC media policy is the only policy that
includes a personal-views exception
statement: scientists may speak freely
if they give a disclaimer that their
views do not represent those of NRC.
The media policy also encourages
communications personnel to liaise
with scientists to ensure the accuracy
of information released. However, NRC
scientists may not respond directly to
media inquiries.
The Research ntegrity policy
acknowledges the importance of
open communication and contains
protections for employees bringing
forward cases of research misconduct,
such as the falsifcation of data.
However this policy lacks broader
concepts of scientifc integrity such as
promoting the free fow of scientifc
and technological information
(identifed as one of the main principles
that should be included in scientifc
integrity policies for the United States
government
19
).
O9CGBO9N HS4S9H3R
3BZO3GN 39O9K9 <OH3? !Y
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& <=Z<@
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' =EZ=E
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ <=Z=@
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech <BZ>E
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% @Z@
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ VLM
8-9:;;-127<0:145
Highlight scientists' rights to edit and review scientifc media products
(such as press releases).
nclude an explicit statement that only scientists may edit scientifc content.
O+$ ]$'$)*"+ S%&$5*#&7 -.0#"7
)"/%.20$35$' &+$ #6-.*&)%"$
.1 .-$% ".669%#")&#.% )%3
".%&)#%' -*.&$"&#.%' 1.*
$6-0.7$$' ,*#%5#%5 1.*2)*3
")'$' .1 *$'$)*"+ 6#'".%39"&4
sdch as |he a|s|ca||on o da|a
a.2$8$* &+#' -.0#"7 0)"/' ,*.)3$*
concep|s o sc|en||c |n|er||y
sdch as prono||n |he ree ow
o sc|en||c and |echno|o|ca|
|norna||on, ,wh|ch was |den||ed
)' .%$ .1 &+$ 6)#% -*#%"#-0$' &+)&
shod|d be |nc|dded |n sc|en||c
#%&$5*#&7 -.0#"#$' 1.* &+$ U%#&$3
!&)&$' 5.8$*%6$%&K;
3"% 450$%/0*/* 46$"78
K0<= a research portfolio that spans
oil sands, forestry, and natural
hazards such as earthquakes and
landslides, NRCan scientists are tasked
with a broad but critical research
area. NRCan lags behind the other
departments studied as it does not
have omcial departmental policies for
media relations or scientifc integrity.
Therefore, we based our analysis
on two sets of media guidelines,
v
the NRCan Science and Technology
Publications Policy, and the NRCan
values and Ethics Code.
NRCan policies emphasize message
control and place restrictions on
who may interact with the media.
Media relations will develop
messages together with the
spokesperson and communications
managers, approval is then required
from the Minister's Director of
Communications and, in some
cases, from the Privy Council Office.
The NRCan values and Ethics Code
states that employees' right to
free speech needs to be balanced
with their duty of loyalty and
spokespeople should not ofer
personal opinion.
NRCan's values and Ethics code
specifcally notes that NRCan
supports "working together in a
spirit of openness, honesty and
transparency that encourages
engagement, collaboration and
respectful communication,"
however, it does not promote open
communication with the media.
O9CZH9N HS4BZH3S4 39O9K9
<OH39O? /
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& BZ<@
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' <EZ=E
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ ?Z=@
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech <EZ>E
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% @Z@
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ 38%
8-9:;;-127<0:145
A departmental media policy should be developed that is consistent
throughout the department and highlights the roles, responsibilities, and
rights of scientists and communications personnel.
Reduce the number of approvals required for employees to interact with
the media and reduce the emphasis on message control.
8
O+$'$ 59#3$0#%$' 2$*$ 0)'& "#*"90)&$3 &. $6-0.7$$' #% =E<E )%3 )0&+.95+ &+$7 )*$ %. 0.%5$* #% 9'$ H-$*'; ".66; [)90 W9"+$'%$4 T)%)5$* .1 J]I)% T$3#)
Re|a||ons), |here |s no ev|dence |ha| |hese po||c|es have been oc|a||y resc|nded or rep|aced w||h a depar|nen| ned|a po||cy
J]I)%Q' _)09$' )%3 M&+#"' ".3$
spec|ca||y no|es |ha| NRCan
'9--.*&' X2.*/#%5 &.5$&+$* #% )
'-#*#& .1 .-$%%$''4 +.%$'&7 )%3
&*)%'-)*$%"7 &+)& $%".9*)5$'
$%5)5$6$%&4 ".00),.*)&#.% )%3
*$'-$"&190 ".669%#")&#.%cY
+.2$8$*4 #& 3.$' %.& -*.6.&$
.-$% ".669%#")&#.% 2#&+ &+$
6$3#);
Crading communication policies for federal government scientists
QZ
)K[%! employs a comparatively small
number of scientists and engineers
who are involved in overseeing
government property and buildings.
The PWCSC Answering Media nquiries
policy is a straightforward document
that clearly outlines the roles and
responsibilities of the media relations
unit, regional communications' omces,
and employees. However, the PWCSC
media policy scored poorly compared
to other departments for two main
reasons. The policy makes no mention
of employee's rights to speak freely or
review and edit scientifc documents.
Moreover, media communications
is highly controlled, with many
restrictions and required approvals.
For example, a media relations or
communications representative must
monitor all interviews between a
spokesperson and the media.
The PWCSC Code of Conduct stands
out from other departments regarding
whistleblower protection: it includes
the PWCSC Cuideline on Employee
Retaliation Protection with Respect to
Formal Recourse.
This is described as the frst guideline
of its kind in the public service,
providing internal protections as an
alternative to those provided when a
disclosure is fled through the Public
Servant Disclosure Protection Act.
@ZQNG3 \BH!4 9OK 1BTSHO'SOC
4SHTG3S4 39O9K9 <@\143? /
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& <=Z<@
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' <BZ=E
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ =Z=@
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech <EZ>E
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% >Z@
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ WVM
8-9:;;-127<0:145
Reduce the restrictions on those employees who are not departmental
spokespeople from interacting with the media.
Highlight employees' rights to scientifc free speech.
O+$ [Fd!I I.3$ .1 I.%39"&
'&)%3' .9& 1*.6 .&+$*
3$-)*&6$%&' *$5)*3#%5
2+#'&0$,0.2$* -*.&$"&#.%b #&
#%"093$' &+$ [Fd!I d9#3$0#%$ .%
M6-0.7$$ ]$&)0#)&#.% [*.&$"&#.%
2#&+ ]$'-$"& &. V.*6)0 ]$".9*'$;
Th|s |s descr|bed as |he rs|
59#3$0#%$ .1 #&' /#%3 #% &+$ -9,0#"
'$*8#"$4 -*.8#3#%5 #%&$*%)0
-*.&$"&#.%' )' )% )0&$*%)&#8$ &.
&+.'$ -*.8#3$3 2+$% ) 3#'"0.'9*$
|s |ed |hrodh |he Pdb||c Servan|
W#'"0.'9*$ [*.&$"&#.% L"&;
3"% 450$%/0*/* 46$"78
R\
(: assess departments that do
not have a departmental media
policy, we used the TBS, which
issues policies and guidelines that
pertain to all public servants. The
Communications Policy of the
Covernment of Canada (CoC) is a
broad document that applies to many
aspects of communication, including
media relations and spokespersons
(sections 19 and 20). Overall, this
policy includes language supporting
open communication, however its
lack of sumcient detail may result
in communications personnel and
managers implementing an overly
restrictive interpretation of the
policy. The CoC Communications
Policy focuses on the responsibility of
communications personnel to route
media requests to spokespeople.
Spokespeople must limit their remarks
to matters of fact when speaking as an
institution's omcial representative, but
no direction is given for statements in
an unomcial capacity or for
non-spokesperson employees.
While scientists' rights are not explicitly
discussed in the context of media
relations, "functional specialists"
(including analysts and researchers)
are required to "participate actively
in the planning, co-ordination and
implementation of an
institution's communications."
This implies that scientists will
have access to drafts and be able
to edit media products, however,
there is no explicit statement that
communications personnel must not
edit media products in a manner that
changes the scientifc content.
CHS94ZHU QB9HK B- 39O9K9
4S3HSC9HG9C <CQ4?
Used to Assess: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Transport Canada !F
L""$''#,0$4 I9**$%&4 I0$)*4 )%3 I.%'#'&$%& <=Z<@
[*.6.&$' \-$%%$'' )%3 O#6$0#%$'' <BZ=E
!)1$59)*3' L5)#%'& [.0#&#")0 S%&$*1$*$%"$ <<Z=@
Pro|ec|s Sc|en||c Free Speech <EZ>E
W#'-9&$ ]$'.09&#.% )%3 F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% @Z@
C+/": @$#5$%/"($ >[M
8-9:;;-127<0:145
Clearly state details regarding the roles and responsibilities of media
relations, spokespersons, and all other employees.
Amrm employees' right to speak freely, provided that they acknowledge
that their views do not represent those of the department.
F+#0$ '"#$%&#'&'Q *#5+&' )*$ %.&
$:-0#"#&07 3#'"9''$3 #% &+$ ".%&$:&
.1 6$3#) *$0)&#.%'4 X19%"&#.%)0
'-$"#)0#'&'Y H#%"093#%5 )%)07'&'
)%3 *$'$)*"+$*'K )*$ *$^9#*$3
&. X-)*&#"#-)&$ )"&#8$07 #% &+$
-0)%%#%54 ".G.*3#%)&#.% )%3
#6-0$6$%&)&#.% .1 )% #%'&#&9&#.%Q'
".669%#")&#.%';Y
O+#' #6-0#$' &+)& '"#$%&#'&' 2#00
+)8$ )""$'' &. 3*)1&' )%3 ,$ ),0$
&. $3#& 6$3#) -*.39"&'c +.2$8$*4
&+$*$ #' %. $:-0#"#& '&)&$6$%&
&+)& ".669%#")&#.%' -$*'.%%$0
69'& %.& $3#& 6$3#) -*.39"&'
#% ) 6)%%$* &+)& "+)%5$' &+$
sc|en||c con|en|
Crading communication policies for federal government scientists
RQ
%:B?<0:14
Based on evidence from previous studies and feedback
from the scientists themselves, we believe that
strengthening media policies is an efective way to help
establish good practices within departments, facilitate
the free communication of scientifc information among
scientists and between scientists and the public, and
strengthen public trust in government science.
n keeping with the stated goals of the Covernment
of Canada's communications policy that government
communication should be in the spirit of "freedom and
openness,"
<
departments should put these goals into
action by improving the media policies that govern federal
scientists' communications with the media and the public.
We have fve key recommendations for how Canadian
federal departments and agencies can improve science
communication policies:
1. Make policies easily available online for scientists,
|ournalists and the public.
2. Make it explicit that scientists can speak freely
about their research to facilitate clear and timely
communication between scientists and |ournalists.
3. Cive scientists the right to have the fnal review of the
scientifc content of media products (e.g. press releases)
that make substantial use of their work to protect
against political interference.
4. nclude a 'personal-views exception' to allow scientists
to express their personal opinions in a professional and
respectful manner as long as they make clear they are
not representing the views of their department.
5. nclude provisions to protect whistleblowers and
efectively resolve disputes.
Some changes are simple, such as making the media policies
available online and incorporating provisions supporting
timely communication. These small additions could improve
government transparency almost immediately. However,
the greatest impact would come from a fundamental shift
in government communication policies from a strict focus
on message control to a more facilitative role, supporting
interactions between scientists and the media.
t is critical that this shift be incorporated into the
Covernment of Canada Communications Policy
<
.
This broad policy, which applies to all public servants, sets
the standard for communications, and currently lacks key
measures that are necessary for it to be efective. Although
this kind of change requires a substantial commitment from
department management, it is not impossible.
When the Union of Concerned Scientists repeated their U.S.
media policy assessment in 2013, fve years after their initial
assessment, they found that increased U.S. government
support for scientifc integrity
19
had positively afected media
policies and improved communication between scientists
and the media.
<<

Science communication in Canada can be improved through
better media policies and a strong commitment from all
levels of government to uphold the values of openness
and transparency.
As government science becomes more transparent, the
government itself will beneft by building the public trust
and attracting high-quality researchers to work within the
government. All Canadians will beneft from our increased
ability to hold the government accountable and ensure that
decisions about our health and environment are based on
the best available scientifc evidence.
3"% 450$%/0*/* 46$"78
RR
8-E->-19-4
< O*$)'9*7 e.)*3 .1 I)%)3) !$"*$&)*#)& HOe!K4 =EEA; I.669%#")&#.%' [.0#"7 .1
&+$ d.8$*%6$%& .1 I)%)3); \%0#%$ )& &+$ O*$)'9*7 e.)*3 [.0#"7 !9#&$ 2$,'#&$b
+&&-bZZ222;&,'G'"&;5";")Z-.0Z3."G$%5;)'-:f#3g<=><A4 )""$''$3 h)%9)*7 B4 =E<?;
= CHara, , 2C!C Canada nds| ree sc|en||s|s |o |a|k |o odrna||s|s Fd||or|a|
J)&9*$ ?AB H@E<K;
> e9*56)%%4 O;4 =E<=; \&&)2) P69RR0#%5Q '"#$%&#'&'4 -)%$0 &$00' 50.,)0 *$'$)*"+
".669%#&7; O+$ I)%)3#)% [*$''; \%0#%$ )& +&&-bZZ222;&+$50.,$)%36)#0;
".6Z%$2'Z-.0#&#"'Z.&&)2)G69RR0#%5G'"#$%&#'&'G-)%$0G&$00'G50.,)0G*$'$)*"+G
".669%#&7Z)*&#"0$?ED=?ACZ4 )""$''$3 h907 >4 =E<?;
? V*.R$% \9&4 =E<=; M3#&.*#)0; J)&9*$ ?C> HB>CBKb A;
@ !$6$%#9/4 S; =E<>; !"#$%&#'&' -9'+ ")6-)#5% 1.* $8#3$%"$G,)'$3
3$"#'#.% 6)/#%5 1*.6 5.8$*%6$%&; O+$ d0.,$ )%3 T)#0; \%0#%$ )& +&&-bZZ
222;&+$50.,$)%36)#0;".6Z%$2'Z%)&#.%)0Z'"#$%&#'&'G)#6G&.G-9&G'&)&$G
.1G")%)3#)%G*$'$)*"+G#%G&+$G-9,0#"G'-.&0#5+&G2#&+G3$6.%'&*)&#.%'Z
)*&#"0$<?>>=@?AZ4 )""$''$3 h907 =C4 =E<?;
A !+$%3*9/4 L; =E<>; L*$ '"#$%&#'&' ,$#%5 69RR0$3f L 0../ )& &+$ *$".*34
S%1.5*)-+#"b V#1&$$% 7$)*' .1 J]I -9,0#")&#.%'; \%0#%$ )& &+$ T)"0$)%'
T)5)R#%$ 2$,'#&$b +&&-bZZ222;6)"0$)%';")Z)9&+.*'Z)6)%3)G'+$%3*9/Z)*$G
'"#$%&#'&'G,$#%5G69RR0$3G)G0../G)&G&+$G*$".*3Z4 )""$''$3b h907 =C4 =E<?;
B e#*"+)*34 i; )%3 N$2#%5&.%4 h;4 =E<?; W#'-9&$ .8$* &+$ 19&9*$ .1 ,)'#"
*$'$)*"+ #% I)%)3); J$2 j.*/ O#6$'; \%0#%$ )& +&&-bZZ222;%7&#6$';
".6Z=E<?ZE=Z<BZ2.*03Z)6$*#")'Z3#'-9&$G.8$*G&+$G19&9*$G.1G,)'#"G*$'$)*"+G
#%G")%)3);+&60f'6#3g1,G'+)*$kl*g<4 )""$''$3 h907 =C4 =E<?;
C Cce o |he norna||on Conn|ss|oner o Canada ,CC), 2C! Sys|ena||c
S%8$'&#5)&#.%b S%1.*6)&#.% I.66#''#.%$* #' #%8$'&#5)&#%5 ) ".6-0)#%& 6)3$
,7 &+$ M%8#*.%6$%&)0 N)2 I0#%#" .1 &+$ U%#8$*'#&7 .1 _#"&.*#) )%3 W$6."*)"7
F)&"+; \%0#%$ )& +&&-bZZ222;.#"G"#;5";")Z$%5Z'7'&$6#"G#%8$'&#5)&#.%'G
$%^9$&$'G'7'&$6#^9$'l=E<>l<;)'-:4 )""$''$34 h907 =C4 =E<?;
D M%8#*.%#"' ]$'$)*"+ d*.9-4 =E<>; !9*8$7 .1 V$3$*)0 !"#$%&#'&'=E<>b e)**#$*'
|o |he Fec||ve Conndn|ca||on and Use o Sc|en||c Fv|dence /va||ab|e a|
+&&-bZZ222;-#-'";")Z,#5"+#004 )""$''$3 h)%9)*7 C4 =E<?;
<E O+$ [*.1$''#.%)0 S%'#&9&$ .1 &+$ [9,0#" !$*8#"$ .1 I)%)3)4 =E<>; O+$ e#5 I+#00b
!#0$%"#%5 [9,0#" S%&$*$'& !"#$%"$4 L !9*8$7; =E<>; L8)#0),0$ )& +&&-bZZ222;
-#-'";")Z,#5"+#004 )""$''$3 h)%9)*7 B4 =E<?;
<< U%#.% .1 I.%"$*%$3 !"#$%&#'&' HUI!K4 =EEC; V*$$3.6 &. '-$)/f L *$-.*&
")*3 .% 1$3$*)0 )5$%"7 6$3#) -.0#"#$'; F)'+#%5&.%4 WI; \%0#%$ )& +&&-bZZ
wwwdcsdsaor/ sc|en||c_|n|er||y/ abdses_o_sc|ence/reedon|ospeak
+&604 )""$''$3 T)*"+ =B4 =E<?;
<= U%#.% 1.* I.%"$*%$3 !"#$%&#'&' HUI!K4 =E<>; d*)3#%5 d.8$*%6$%&
O*)%'-)*$%"7b !"#$%&#'&'Q V*$$3.6 &. !-$)/ H)%3 O2$$&K )& V$3$*)0 L5$%"#$';
\ash|n|on, DC Cn||ne a| h||p//wwwdcsdsaor/sc|en||c_|n|er||y/
so|d||ons/aencyspec|c_so|d||ons/rad|novernnen||ransparencyh|n|,
)""$''$3 W$"$6,$* =E4 =E<>;
<> O*$)'9*7 e.)*3 .1 I)%)3) !$"*$&)*#)& HOe!K4 =E<<); _)09$' )%3 M&+#"' I.3$ 1.*
&+$ [9,0#" !$"&.*; \%0#%$ )& &+$ O*$)'9*7 e.)*3 [.0#"7 !9#&$ 2$,'#&$b
+&&-bZZ222;&,'G'"&;5";")Z-.0Z3."G$%5;)'-:f#3g=@E?Dk'$"&#.%g&$:&4 )""$''$3
L-*#0 =@4 =E<?;
<? [9,0#" !$*8)%&' W#'"0.'9*$ [*.&$"&#.% L"&4 !&)&9&$' .1 I)%)3) H=EE@4 "; ?AK;
Cn||ne a| |he Depar|nen| o ds||ce webs||e h||p//|aws|o|sds||cecca/
$%5Z)"&'Z[G><;DZ4 )""$''$3 L-*#0 =>4 =E<?;
<@ V$3$*)0 L"".9%&),#0#&7 S%#&#)&#8$ 1.* ]$1.*6 HVLS]K4 =E<=; F+)&Q' F*.%5
2#&+ I)%)3)Q' V$3$*)0 F+#'&0$,0.2$* N$5#'0)&#.%b L% )%)07'#' .1 &+$ [9,0#"
!$*8)%&' W#'"0.'9*$ [*.&$"&#.% L"&; \%0#%$ )& +&&-bZZ1)#*2+#'&0$,0.2$*;")Z4
)""$''$3 h)%9)*7 A4 =E<?;
<A Hd||on, D 2C! Shoo||n |he Messener The Need or Fec||ve
F+#'&0$,0.2$* [*.&$"&#.% #% L0,$*&); [)*/0)%3 S'&#&9&$; \%0#%$ )& +&&-bZZ
-)*/0)%3#%'&#&9&$;")Z *$'$)*"+Z'966)*7Z '+..&#%5l&+$l6$''$%5$*4
)""$''$3 h9%$ =B4 =E<?;
<B !&)&#'&#"' I)%)3)4 =E<?; O),0$ >@CGE<A@ G V$3$*)0 -$*'.%%$0 $%5)5$3 #%
sc|ence and |echno|o|ca| ac||v|||es, by occdpa||ona| ca|eory and naor
3$-)*&6$%&' )%3 )5$%"#$'4 )%%9)0 H%96,$*K; \%0#%$ )& ILJ!ST H3)&),)'$K4
+&&-bZZ222@;'&)&")%;5";")Z")%'#64 )""$''$3b h)%9)*7 ==4 =E<?;
<C d*$$%2..34 I; )%3 I; !)%3,.*%4 =E<>; T9RR0#%5 I#8#0 !$*8)%&'b L
O+*$)& &. W$6."*)"7f \%0#%$ )& &+$ W$6."*)"7 F)&"+ 2$,'#&$b +&&-bZZ
3$6."*)"72)&"+;")Z*$-.*&'Z4 )""$''$3 h)%; C4 =E<?;
<D Ho|dren, P 2C!C Sc|en||c |n|er||y Menoranddn or |he heads o
execd||ve depar|nen|s and aenc|es, Decenber !7 \ash|n|on, DC Cce
.1 !"#$%"$ )%3 O$"+%.0.57 [.0#"7; \%0#%$ )& +&&-bZZ222;2+#&$+.9'$;5.8Z
s||es/dead||/|es/n|cros||es/os|p/sc|en||c|n|er||yneno!2!72C!Cpd,
)""$''$3 h9%$ <<4 =E<>;
"?<=:>4
!"#$% '"(%)*+%,-+#.
Simon Fraser University
!"/0$ 1022*
Evidence for Democracy
"9]1:HB-23-;-1<4
This work was supported by the 3$%/#$ F+# 3+"*/": 4/).0$* at 4-Z; SJ0.$%5$ F+#
K$A+5#"5I, the O4SH3 3"%"." K0*5+J$#I 1#"%/* @#+(#"AA$, the \0::+] 1#+J$
-+)%."/0+%, with additional support from the Z%0J$#*0/I +F B//"]". We thank
5cott Findlay, Arne Mooers, Patricia Gallaugher, Wendy Palen, Gretchen Goldman,
SA0:I O+#("%(; ^+% '++#$; 4"::I B//+ and 9:"%" \$*/]++. for input of various
kinds and help with scoring. We thank Anish Parmar for designing the fnal report and
Philippe Marchand and Marie-Michelle Gagn for the French translation.
We thank J+:)%/$$#* "/ SJ0.$%5$ F+# K$A+5#"5I and the 4-Z -9Q* Lab
members for their feedback and assistance with scoring. We also thank @"):
K)F+)# "%. /]+ "..0/0+%": "%+%IA+)* #$J0$]$#* for useful comments on an
earlier version of this report.
!"#$% '"(%)*+%,-+#.
Simon Fraser University
!"/0$ 1022*
Evidence for Democracy