Science and Research Committee on Feb. 16th, 2023

[Dr. Jeremy Kerr]

Thank you very much. It's an excellent question.

I talked in my remarks a little bit about the need to be inclusive. I meant that very specifically to be everybody. Communities that are not typically part of decision-making processes ought to be, because that's how we are supposed to do things in Canada.

My experience, in working with rural communities and with landowners outside our cities, is that every single one of those people cares about stewardship. I've never met a producer who wanted to degrade the capacity of the environment to continue to provide a means of living for their families into the future.

I think we have to approach those communities with great respect, listen carefully to what they feel the priorities are around stewardship and weave that into our broader narrative. Those voices deserve respect, and I'm encouraged by the policies that I see being developed, which will do exactly that.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Gonzalez, do you have anything to add?

[Andrew Gonzalez]

Yes, indeed. It's an incredibly important problem.

I have two levels of an answer. What we're finding, first, is that rural communities and landowners working far from the city often have an extremely deep appreciation and understanding of their biological diversity. Because of the types of technologies that Jeremy and I have spoken about today, they have never been more connected or better engaged in this sharing process—the sharing of observations and information.

Second, that accessibility translates to an easier engagement when, through conservation projects and practices, for example, we want to establish new protected areas under the new 2030 goals, far from the city. Through the QCBS we've been involved in several projects that have involved landowners far from the city, far from Quebec or Montreal, in thinking about how to preserve the connectivity of our landscape.

I worry less about their role than I might have done 10 years ago. We're seeing an uptake in this and broad engagement.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

Ms. Lewis, I think you would agree that when conducting brain research—and I think most Canadians would agree as well—it's important to listen to the professionals, whether that be doctors, scientists or, in this case, the citizens who are working on your project.

How do we ensure that decisions being made from research produced by certified professionals are not the opinions of politicians?

[Nicola Lewis]

I think that's the role of knowledge mobilization and knowledge translation. I think that's where the peer-review process comes in, in terms of the sharing of the results of science and the acceptance of that high academic standard of the research that's conducted.

I know with Kids Brain Health we look at research that's leading-edge in this country around neurodevelopmental disability and how that can go forward.

We don't support research that hasn't gone through a very rigorous process. There has to be evidence and proof of principle before our organization works with a program, because what we're interested in is implementation, how you can have impact.

We know the statistic that it takes 17 years for an initial research program to get to impact. We would like to see that sped up. We work with scientists who say, “We have something here. We have a solution to a problem that's been identified. Can you help us to get this to scale and spread, working with our parents and families?”

That's what we're about. We're about enabling excellent science to make it into the community.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Does anyone else have an opinion on that?

How do we make sure that science prevails at the end of the day and not political opinion?

[Dr. Jeremy Kerr]

Very quickly, science is a self-checking process. As long as it's conducted openly, it's very hard to conceal mistakes. I think it is its own mechanism for self-correction. While it continues to be open, there is an opportunity to make adjustments to ensure that we're using science and not purely subjective views in making decisions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Thank you so much for that.

We now move on to Ms. Diab.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all our witnesses.

Just listening to you I see the passion and the excitement in how you describe citizen science and how you describe making a difference for others through science. It's wonderful to see that and it's been a great study. We've learned quite a bit about how everybody can be involved in one aspect or another. I know there have been a number of questions on reliability, integrity and engagement, so it's great to have received all these answers.

I'm going to ask Ms. Lewis because we haven't had many witnesses, to be quite frank with you, on health, health care and particularly in that field in health research. It is something that I'm personally interested in. Again, we haven't had many testimonies on that.

Can you talk to us a little bit more about the opportunities that citizen scientists have?

You talked about mothers in this case. Can you talk a bit more about that and health research for citizen scientists. I would love to get a little bit more for our study on that.

[Nicola Lewis]

There is a tremendous opportunity to embrace citizen scientists in all of the work that comes through that is supported by the federal government and that is supported by NGOs like ours. I think if the tri-council put in a requirement around citizen engagement like they are doing right now towards EDI and other areas, that would go a long way to supporting the work that is being done. I think when I've been talking about the family engagement in research, it's a model. The model is not just training. The model is around support, around advancement of leaders in family engagement, the advancement of those champions and mentorship. It's not enough to have training. We've learned that along the way over the last five years.

We have seen with the research programs that we fund—and I talked about over 200 programs of research—every one of those programs has family engagement and partnership engagement. They've really helped shape the best research that we possibly can do.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

You're talking about brain research. In Halifax, where I come from, I represent a rich community in Halifax that has the brain repair centre at Dalhousie University. I know they're doing magnificent work.

Is there collaboration? Do you share, or are you even aware of it?

[Nicola Lewis]

We are aware of it. We're aware of all the brain research centres across the country. KBHN is a very large network. It wouldn't surprise me if there are multidisciplinary researchers out of that institute who are involved as collaborators in many of our projects, because they are multidisciplinary and they are across Canada. While the PI may be located at McGill, for example, in Montreal, the team is not solely located there. It's comprises researchers from right across the country.

Through that, we encourage the work that we do and we do lots of sharing. We have a very large network and a very large mechanism through social media.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's fantastic to hear.

I know at Dalhousie they are engaging, quite a bit, early researchers but also undergraduate students and graduate students.

What role can they have to play in the work that you're doing?

[Nicola Lewis]

I hope they would apply to come and join the family engagement in research program, to get certified and to go through the course. It's a commitment. It's 30 hours of time online. It would give them tremendous insight, knowledge and skills to then apply those lessons to the work they do. The family engagement research program is open to any researcher or trainee who works in neuroscience to apply for the program. It's free of charge. KBHN has supported all of our family members and our trainees so far to take the course.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'm going to end by saying that one of my children is a neuroscientist with his Ph.D. and is working in that field. For me, this has been a tremendous opportunity to have you here and to ask you that, because I think it's a phenomenal area that we need to do a lot more in.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Thank you.

We'll go to our two and a half minute round with MP Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gonzales, I took a look at the website of the Quebec Biodiversity Science Centre. It is very interesting. I noticed that it included many publications. There were 182 in total.

How many of these publications would you estimate are in French, roughly?

[Andrew Gonzalez]

I don't know, but I would say that most publications in biology, as in most scientific fields, are in English. It is the lingua franca of science. If I had to make an estimate, I would say it's between 1% and 5%.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I will give you the exact answer, Mr. Gonzales: it is 1%.

Of those 182 publications, two are in French. I'm asking you this question to get at another problem: How do we get the public interested in citizen science if the scientific content that might interest them is not available in their language?

I understand that English is the lingua franca of science, but we must also understand that in Quebec and francophone communities in Canada, the relationship between French and English is not the same as in the rest of the world. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

The mobilization of scientific knowledge in French in Quebec, and even in francophone communities outside Quebec, is certainly inadequate. Isn't this an inequality, and even a barrier to science as a lever for economic and social development for francophones?

[Andrew Gonzalez]

I would argue that, in any case, there are several barriers to mobilizing scientific knowledge. You know that most of these papers are behind what's called a paywall. People have to pay to get through that wall. Universities and researchers pay to access this knowledge in scientific journals. So there is already a first barrier to accessing a scientific article, regardless of the language in which it is written.

Then there are barriers associated with the need to communicate clearly the results of advanced scientific work through the media, whether it's radio, print or television. I think we can be critical of science in general in terms of how well it mobilizes this knowledge in a language that is accessible to—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Thank you so much for that.

I apologize for cutting you off, but if you have more, you can always submit your answer in written form.

[Andrew Gonzalez]

Yes, will do.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Now, going on to the final two and a half minutes, we have MP Cannings.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I'll follow up on that, because I was going to ask a question about how beneficial citizen science is, not just for the scientists and the science data and information we gather but for the citizen scientists themselves in terms of the benefits they get with the feeling of inclusion and their ownership of the data.

Mr. Mazier was talking about farmers and rural people with that deep knowledge. Citizen science projects could give them that sense that they're doing something, that they are part of this. They could understand it, and they would see the results. I just wanted to talk about that.

I would add, following up on Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, that most of these citizen scientists are not reading the scientific papers that come out of this. They're reading the reports that come out in the brochures and newsletters. I come from the Birds Canada world, where all of that is in both languages. That's where they get that sort of feedback, as well as on the sites themselves.

Could you maybe spend a very short period of time—because I've talked a lot—on how important it is to engage those citizen scientists and report back on their results so they can feel that they truly are a part of that whole scheme?

That’s for Jeremy or Andrew.

[Dr. Jeremy Kerr]

Perhaps I'll lead things off then, Mr. Gonzalez.

Citizen scientists deserve and have earned the respect of the professional science community because their expertise is profound. In addition to our giving them the sense that we actually honour their contributions, they are sometimes the most knowledgeable people about what's going on in their communities, about the species that are present and about identifying those characteristics of biodiversity that are distinct in those places.

There are so many ways in which we can communicate that outstanding kind of contribution. I speak to school kids. I've done some national presentations to classrooms simulcast all over the place. Children are deeply excited about the fact that they can be scientists too, and they can. They just have to care enough and they have to know that we care to accept what they contribute. The same thing is true in a more adult kind of way in every community with which I have interacted over many years now. My sense is that citizen science is a two-way street. It's a kind of conversation between the professional science community and the broader Canadian landscape.