Amidst the promises, commitments, and platforms of political parties and politicians, the action that matters in the end is the follow through. You can campaign on introducing Pharmacare, and then spend four years not doing it. For science and those who research, science is political. And like politics, the follow through is the action that matters.

In the mid-2000s, when I was in studying my undergraduate degree in Environmental Policy and Practice at the University of Toronto, much of what we focused on was trying to win the argument that Climate Change was even happening. I remember the semantic discussions of the movement away from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” because it was more amenable to industry. I remember reading research that tracked decades of typhoons in the Pacific Ocean as evidence of heating. I remember learning about early research that showed atmospheric Hadley cells (a large-scale atmospheric convection cell at the equator where air begins to rise and sinks at latitudes typically 30° north or south) were deteriorating as the Earth was unevenly rising in temperature. I remember this revelation as a particularly solid piece of scientific proof that what we were doing was having a dramatic impact on atmospheric processes – we weren’t just changing temperatures, we were creating interconnected systems of global changes. The effects of atmospheric Hadley cells reorganizing or collapsing was just simply terrifying to me.

By 2010, I’d been admitted to the Master of Environmental Studies program at York University and the discourse had shifted. It was widely accepted that we were facing global warming. Instead, I noticed that our conversations, learning, and discourse were about climate adaptation and mitigation. How do we preserve and ensure biodiversity with warming climates? How do we engineer and plan cities to be flood and storm resistant? It became clearer that we needed governments to act.

Now, a decade after I’ve finished my Masters, Canada is no closer to reversals in aggregate greenhouse gas emissions. Despite whatever policy successes you point to, be it the elimination of major coal fired power plants in Ontario or implementation of the Federal Carbon Tax, we’ve never met a Canadian target or goal, even when the targets get more and more lenient. The follow through isn’t there.

We need more science in politics. There are lots of policies that bring scientists into political decision making. The Species at Risk Act (SARA) demonstrates a highly scientific and political system. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is made up of experts across the country that use evidence-based information to list species on relevant Schedules to the Act. Species determined to be in need, like the Vancouver Island Marmot, are listed on relevant Schedules. The requirement is then on the Ministry to establish a scientific recovery strategy. Recovery strategies are scientific studies that include critical habitat analyses, threat assessments, biological assessment and classification of the relevant species and related populations, and more. The recovery strategy is then actioned or not by the Ministry.

SARA and laws like it do not separate the scientific and political, but rather, show that the science is political and there has to be follow through. The most comprehensive, evidence-based recovery strategy won’t save a single creature unless it is actioned. And when it comes to the allocation of government resources and power, it is always political. And if your science clearly indicates that government resource and power are needed, then it is political science. If we leave it up to only politicians to act, there’s no follow through.

If science and research shows that action is required, it’s not enough to just publish and hope action will follow. It’s incumbent on scientists to participate in the world they study. Science has to follow-through.

In my current professional life, I work as a Researcher for Service Employees International Union Healthcare, helping to represent 60,000 frontline healthcare workers in Ontario. Daily, I employ primary data from case law, collective agreements, economic indicators, sectoral wages and comparators, and more to build arguments for grievances, bargaining, negotiations, and interest arbitrations. There are myriad primary and secondary data in Long-Term Care from prior and during the pandemic that shows consistent, systemic issues with worker recruitment and retention, significantly lower wages across workplaces, worse patient outcomes from for-profit care, and clear evidence in the flaws of the system resulting in 1351 outbreaks and 3892 deaths of residents in long-term care homes in Ontario as of March 22, 2021.

The research isn’t enough because even with all the data and evidence, not one LTC operator has lost their license to administer care in Ontario even as death tolls in individual facilities reach into the dozens. And that’s why organizations like Doctors for Long-Term Care Justice, Healthcare Unions across Ontario, community groups, and resident families are coming together to take action. The science tells us there is action required or people will keep dying.

If the science tells us we should act, and gives us a credible path to act on, we scientists have to take action. Otherwise, we’re just not following through.

—

To learn more about Brian you can find his website here.