Comment: The interplay of policy, politics, and science

Abstract

In their article, “Is scientific inquiry incompatible with government information control?”, Hutchings et al. (1997) argue that political interference with science and the communication of science (specifically scientific uncertainty and scientific disagreement) in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has compromised DFO’s efforts to sustain fish stocks. As examples they outline evidence of political manipulation of science to support political decisions in the collapse of Newfoundland’s northern cod and the establishment of minimum in-stream flows for salmon conservation in B.C.’s Nechako River. As a solution they recommend the creation of a publicly financed but politically independent institution, like the former Fisheries Research Board, that would analyze the status of fish stocks and openly publicize the results. The article is a serious indictment of DFO but I believe that the authors’ analysis is seriously flawed. Few would deny that the process of incorporating science into government decision making can be improved, or that the DFO bureaucracy sometimes makes bad decisions, or that ministers sometimes ignore scientific advice. However, in their criticism the authors display the same lack of objectivity and failure to assess the full range of alternatives of which they accuse DFO. My purpose in this comment is to offer an explanation, consistent with theories of public policy development and political agenda setting, for the interplay of politics and science in DFO and to show why an arm’s-length scientific agency would not solve the problems with which Hutchings et al. (1997) were concerned.