IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/marxiv/5asug_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Scientists Say about the Changing Risk Calculation in the Marine Environment under the Harper Government of Canada (2006-2015):

Author

Listed:
  • Barnett, Allain
  • Wiber, Melanie

Abstract

This paper examines how the Harper Government of Canada (2006-2015) shut down both debate about threats and research into environmental risk, a strategy that Canadian scientists characterized as the “death of evidence.” Based on interviews with scientists who research risks to the marine environment, we explore the shifting relationship between science and the Canadian government by tracing the change in the mode of risk calculation supported by the Harper administration and the impact of this change. Five themes emerged from the interviews: erosion of science research capacity, resulting limitations in understanding risk, declining influence on policy and regulation, redirection of public science funds to support the private sector, and the need to broaden the science knowledge base. The Canadian “death of evidence” controversy represents a challenge to Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholars who wish to maintain a critical and reflexive perspective on the scientific enterprise without supporting attacks on evidence. While subsequent Canadian governments may simply return science to a privileged knowledge status, we view this as equally damaging to broad risk calculation and democratic science. We suggest instead that a broader gathering of matters of concern will always be essential to risk assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Barnett, Allain & Wiber, Melanie, 2018. "What Scientists Say about the Changing Risk Calculation in the Marine Environment under the Harper Government of Canada (2006-2015):," MarXiv 5asug_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:marxiv:5asug_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/5asug_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5b69e33f0f2e80001c5e9f30/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/5asug_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andy Stirling, 2012. "Opening Up the Politics of Knowledge and Power in Bioscience," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-5, January.
    2. James B. Davies & Al Slivinski, 2015. "Economic Efficiency of Federal Provision of Scientific Information and Support for Science Research in Canada," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 41(4), pages 332-342, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katherine Ball & Kirk Jalbert & Lisa Test, 2021. "Making the board: participatory game design for environmental action," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 12-22, March.
    2. Angela Filipe & Alicia Renedo & Cicely Marston, 2017. "The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-6, May.
    3. Alison Mohr & Sujatha Raman, 2012. "Representing the Public in Public Engagement: The Case of the 2008 UK Stem Cell Dialogue," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-4, November.
    4. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.
    5. Rafols, Ismael & Stirling, Andy, 2020. "Designing indicators for opening up evaluation. Insights from research assessment," SocArXiv h2fxp_v1, Center for Open Science.
    6. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "Twenty challenges for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 432-450.
    7. Rafols, Ismael & Stirling, Andy, 2020. "Designing indicators for opening up evaluation. Insights from research assessment," SocArXiv h2fxp, Center for Open Science.
    8. Sigfrid Kjeldaas & Tim Dassler & Trine Antonsen & Odd-Gunnar Wikmark & Anne I. Myhr, 2023. "With great power comes great responsibility: why ‘safe enough’ is not good enough in debates on new gene technologies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 533-545, June.
    9. Barnett, Allain & Wiber, Melanie, 2018. "What Scientists Say about the Changing Risk Calculation in the Marine Environment under the Harper Government of Canada (2006-2015):," MarXiv 5asug, Center for Open Science.
    10. Lonneke M. Poort & Jac. A. A. Swart & Ruth Mampuys & Arend J. Waarlo & Paul C. Struik & Lucien Hanssen, 2022. "Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1207-1216, December.
    11. Fern Wickson & Rosa Binimelis & Amaranta Herrero, 2016. "Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old Story," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-19, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:marxiv:5asug_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://marxiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.