Science Integrity Project hopes to stimulate public debate with statement of principles

Mark Henderson
October 10, 2015

The Science Integrity Project (SIP) has released a statement of principles for the use of sound science-backed decision-making in the midst of the federal election. While its backers say the timing is coincidental, the non-partisan group hopes they will prove beneficial in stimulating public debate on the importance of using science when developing sound policy and ultimately legislation.

SIP brings together more than 75 science policy experts from across Canada and has also conducted more than 30 in-depth interviews with science policy leaders, culminating in a February/15 national forum where more than 60 scientists and public policy analysts achieved consensus on the principles. SIP is managed and financially supported by Tides Canada, a national charity focused on social wellness and environmental issues.

"This is not just a federal exercise since the application of science to policy is not limited to any one government or level of government," says David Secord, Tides Canada's director of Strategic Programs. "There are good and bad practices in canada going back 50 years."

Secord says they decided that focusing on sciences and corresponding issues was too narrow so the group chose to focus on the use of evidence as it includes both the natural, medical and social sciences as well as indigenous knowledge.

SIP Statement of Principles

Principle 1: The best available evidence – produced by methods that are transparent, rigorous, and conducted with integrity – should always inform decision-making in Canada.

Principle 2: Information should be openly exchanged among scientific researchers, indigenous knowledge holders, decision-makers, and the public.

Principle 3: Research results should be preserved, protected, interpreted and shared in a way that is broadly understandable and accessible.

Principle 4: Decision-making processes, and the manner in which evidence informs them, should be transparent and routinely evaluated.

"At the forum, we tried to identify the issue accurately. Science and muzzling is only one symptom of a way bigger problem," says Secord. "We should be inspired by the range of evidence that exists and create mechanisms to help get it into decision-making. I encourage our leaders to do creative things with it."

FMI: www.scienceintegrity.ca.

R$


Other News






Events For Leaders in
Science, Tech, Innovation, and Policy


Discuss and learn from those in the know at our virtual and in-person events.



See Upcoming Events










You have 1 free article remaining.
Don't miss out - start your free trial today.

Start your FREE trial    Already a member? Log in






Top

By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. We use cookies to provide you with a great experience and to help our website run effectively in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.