Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today.
I'm a research associate at the University of British Columbia working on the health and disease of Pacific salmon, and I'm here today to speak on behalf of the scientific process and the critical role of evidence-based science in decision-making and shaping good policy.
The Fisheries Act describes scientific information as one of the key considerations for decision-making. However, concerns about industrial and political interference undermining scientific integrity at DFO have been raised by first nations, academics, NGOs and the DFO scientists' union.
While there are many excellent scientists within DFO carrying out world-class research, it's the structural processes for reviewing and summarizing science that can be the issue. DFO's internal science advice has diverged from international scientific consensus on certain issues. The fisheries minister and other decision-makers can receive advice portrayed as science, yet it isn't evidence-based, impartial or independently reviewed—essential components of trustworthy, high-quality scientific practice.
A paper I co-authored last year used salmon aquaculture in B.C. as a case study to examine this phenomenon. In the paper, we described how DFO science was captured by industry, how data implicating the industry in harm to wild salmon was repeatedly pushed aside, how key papers were suppressed and how DFO's own scientists were silenced. DFO claims that its CSAS review process is the gold standard, yet it allows industry stakeholders to influence risk assessments concerning their own impacts on wild salmon.
All in all, these problems mean that DFO continues to assess some of the pathogens that I study, like piscine orthoreovirus and tenacibaculum, as not causing disease or not posing a risk, despite evidence suggesting otherwise.
Another example was last year's CSAS report on sea lice. The report's authors cherry-picked their results to suit their narrative, ignored a huge body of pre-existing evidence and then had the report externally reviewed by one industry-associated professor, who signed off on it.
In order to fix these kinds of issues, our paper recommends the establishment of an independent scientific body. This body would provide credible fisheries science advice to decision-makers, a suggestion that has been made numerous times in the past by other senior fisheries scientists. There are numerous examples of these types of independent science advice bodies both within Canada and internationally, such as, for example, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, known as COSEWIC, but when it comes to fisheries science advice, Canada is lagging behind international standards.
Science needs to be just science, based on evidence and free of political and economic influence. This will ultimately help to rebuild trust in DFO decision-making and guard against regulatory capture. In our paper, we identified key features for the independent body to uphold, which I'll submit in writing. They include a strict conflict of interest policy, editorial independence and freedom of scientific inquiry.
I'd also like to take a moment to highlight the precautionary principle, a key concept that emphasizes the importance of caution. It underscores that the absence of scientific certainty should not be used as an excuse to delay action that could prevent serious harm to fish or their ecosystems.
Take, for example, the study of how diseases impact wild fish populations. It's pretty rare to identify a clear, definitive cause-and-effect relationship—what you might call a smoking gun—yet when fish populations are in critical decline, it's crucial to act with precaution. Decisions made under these circumstances can be the difference between recovery and collapse.
Finally, I want to emphasize the need for greater transparency in the science that is used in decision-making. Increased openness would allow external scientists to assess the quality and relevance of the advice being applied. While it's understandable that economic and social considerations play a significant role in these decisions, they should be weighed alongside the science, not used to influence the interpretation of the science itself.
Thank you very much.