The Canadian Science Advocacy Movement by Nicole Stradiotto A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Masters of Information Faculty of Information University of Toronto © Copyright by Nicole Stradiotto 2019 The Canadian Science Advocacy Movement Nicole Stradiotto Masters of Information Faculty of Information University of Toronto 2019 Abstract In this study I explore the nature of the disruptive mobilized science that erupted in Canada between 2006-2018. I investigate both the culture of Canadian mobilized science and the larger question of why this movement occured. I draw on data from interviews with event organizers, as well as from an analysis of publicly-available rally speeches. I utilize Ulrich Beck’s reflexive modernization theory to demonstrate that the culture of science advocacy organizers is complex, and includes both elements that align with Beck's vision of a “reflexive science,” and elements that seem to represent its opposite, or what Beck calls “modern science.” Social movement theory supports my finding that the movement drew on a set of different institutions that provided resources and facilitative conditions. Further, I find that an alliance between specific “impact” disciplines, such as environmental and health sciences, is another facilitative condition for mobilized science. ii Table of Contents List of Tables 3 Chapter 1: Introduction 6 Chapter 2: Background, a short history of the movement 8 Chapter 3: Literature review 12 3.1 Scientists as self-advocates and activists 12 3.2 Reflexive Science 14 3.3 Social Movement Theory 16 Chapter 4: Methods 19 4.1 Data collection: Interviews 19 4.2 Data collection: Rally speeches 21 Chapter 5: Is Canadian mobilized science reflexive? 22 5.1 The science of science 22 5.2 Epistemic authority 24 5.3 Science’s fallibility and adaptability 27 5.4 Integrating values into research 30 5.5 Conclusion 32 Chapter 6: Exploring the facilitative conditions of mobilized science 32 6.1 Resource mobilization theory 33 6.1.1 Federal political parties 33 6.1.2 The university 34 6.1.3 Professional Associations and Labour Unions 39 6.1.4 Social movements 40 6.2 Impact Science, production science and political opportunity structure 41 Chapter 7: Conclusion 43 References 45 iii List of Tables Table 1: operationalization of modern and reflexive science Table 2: operationalization of production and impact science iv 1 Chapter 1: Introduction The Canadian “science advocacy” movement (Linnit, 2014) arose in response to what critics have dubbed Stephen Harper’s “War on Science” (Amend & Barney, 2015). During his term as Prime Minister (2006-2015), Harper was responsible for heavy funding cuts to scientific programs, the restructuring of federal-level science, and highly restrictive science-communication and access-to-information practices. These drastic moves led to public outcry and the rise of scientist-led protest action, action that included events like the “Death of Evidence” and “Stand Up for Science” rallies and the establishment of the organizations Evidence for Democracy and Our Right to Know. This conflict became one of the defining political controversies of Harper’s governance. With the election of Donald Trump, Canadian science advocates mobilized again under the banner of the “March for Science” in early 2017. The American-led march (which has spawned an international social movement organization) arose in response to Trump’s threats to defund various scientific programs, his antagonism toward the Environmental Protection Agency his public denial of anthropogenic climate change (Eilperin, 2016; Milman, 2016). A transnational-activist network reactivated Canadian science activists (Evidence for Democracy, 2017). This continued through the next year; March for Science 2018 reached nine Canadian cities. Under the current Trudeau administration, movement organizations consider the most draconian of the heavily-criticized components of the “War on Science” redressed (Westwood & Walsh, 2016). That said, these scientists are still active, though in many ways their activity is better described as that of an interest group as opposed to a movement. They are focusing now on “safeguarding” their newly reinstated rights (Daviau & Gibbs, 2016) and attempting to hold the Liberals to their promises—promises to abide by “a higher bar for openness and transparency” and “evidence-based decision-making” (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2016). That said, with the recent election of Doug Ford, this network may soon use tactics like marches and rallies again. More broadly, it is apparent that the end of Harper’s governance was far from the end of the story, as the science wars have become a significant set of phenomena that have the capacity to span administrations and national borders. Neither are the actions of the Trump administration necessarily the culmination of this trend. In the words of Rush Holt, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and March for Science 2017 advocate, “It's not just about Donald Trump… It's built on a growing anxiety about the conditions under which science can thrive” (Semeniuk, 2017). It seems that a certain type of dramatic friction in science-society relations, which Canada felt earlier than many other Western nations, may be a feature of our era. 2 As such it is no surprise that many significant intellectual efforts have been devoted to documenting the phenomena of “anti-science” governance. In the Canadian context alone, books like The war on science: ​ Muzzled scientists and wilful blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada (Turner, 2013), Harperism: How ​ ​ Stephen Harper and his think tank colleagues have transformed Canada (Gustein, 2014) and Kill the ​ ​ Messengers: Stephen Harper's Assault on Your Right to Know (Bourrie, 2015) have meticulously ​ demonstrated that the Conservative government has ignored, misrepresented and and suppressed scientific research. Yet this version of the story contains large omissions. First, who are these scientists? The culture of those who wage “war” on science has been explored in depth. Mooney (2006), Turner (2013), Gustein (2014), Bourrie (2015) and others have produced detailed profiles of the conservative cultures that are represented by George W. Bush and Stephen Harper. But what of the other side of the story? Is it not also important to understand the political position and worldview behind mobilized science at greater depth? Second, why did the “war on science” happen? As commented by sociologists McCright and Dunlap, many texts like Mooney (2006), Turner (2013), Gustein (2014) and Bourrie (2015) provide important documentation of what happened, but “only rarely do they delve deeply into why it has happened–beyond ​ ​ suggesting the obvious political motivations of the actors involved” (2010, p. 100). In this project I aim to address these omissions. First, I ask: how can we describe the culture of Canadian mobilized science? Second, I inquire: what are some of the as-of-yet unclarified facilitative conditions behind mobilized science in Canada? To investigate the culture of Canadian mobilized science, I utilize Ulrich Beck’s “reflexive modernization theory”. Bearing in mind that it is impossible to summarize the negotiation of norms, practices and beliefs that constitute any one culture, I demonstrate that the culture of science advocacy organizers is complex, and includes both elements that align with Beck's vision of a “reflexive science,” and elements that seem to represent its opposite, or what Beck called “modern science.” In my investigation into why the movement occured, I draw on social movement theory, specifically, resource mobilization theory and political process theory. I found that political parties, universities, professional associations and labour unions, as well as other social movements, all to some extent provided resources to, and so facilitative conditions for, the movement. Further, I found that specific sciences (“impact” sciences, e.g. environmental and health sciences) are a large presence and focus in this movement, and as such, an alliance between these sciences may be considered another facilitative condition for mobilized science. 3 To complete this analysis, I interviewed 12 activists in early 2018 from across Canada who organized the largest events of science advocacy from 2006 through May 2018: The Stand Up for Science march and March for Science. Further, in an effort to draw on the public communications of the movement, I integrated into my analysis fifteen rally speeches—nine speeches from the 2012 Ottawa Death of Evidence Ottawa rally, and six from the 2017 Toronto March for Science. All of this is undergirded by desktop research of secondary sources and journalistic articles, to provide historical context. The structure of this thesis is as follows. In Chapter 2 I offer a short historical background of mobilized science in the Canadian context. In Chapter 3, I will review the relevant literature—both empirical precedent for this phenomena and theoretical debate relevant to my analysis. Chapter 4 is a description of the methodology that I used to investigate the movement. Chapter 5 marks the beginning of my analysis, as I consider the evidence that the movement represents an example of what Beck calls “reflexive” science. In Chapter 6 I investigate the facilitative conditions behind mobilization. First, I investigate the effects that federal political party resources, university resources, professional associations