STEPHEN HARPER'S GOVERNMENT HAS NO LOVE OF SCIENCE

The principal role of science in society is to advance human
understanding. Unfortunately, in modern times a host of political
masters have invested considerable energy and resources in an effort
to cloud science. The primary goal of such efforts is to manufacture
uncertainty about the world we live in.

The politicization of science is not a new problem. Junk science was
used to justify and then deny the Holocaust, and with Stalin,
scientists were under strict ideological control. In more recent
times, science has taken a beating at the hands of various
industries, special-interest groups, and politicians. Instances
deserving of special mention include the tobacco industry's efforts
to misrepresent and politicize the science showing that smoking is
harmful and Exxon Mobil's donation of more than $16 million to
various organizations working to refute the science specific to climate change.

The Bush administration has also been singled out for its poor
treatment of science. According to a survey by the Union of Concerned
Scientists, one-fifth of U.S. Food and Drug Administration scientists
reported being asked, for nonscientific reasons, to exclude or alter
information or conclusions in an FDA scientific document. The Union
of Concerned Scientists has been so outraged by the Bush
administration's treatment of science that it dedicated a full report
to the topic. According to the report, the administration has
repeatedly placed unqualified individuals or individuals with
conflicts of interest in official posts, censored and suppressed
government reports, and misrepresented scientific knowledge in an
effort to mislead the public.

Although this problem has been evident for some time and has been
seen in countries throughout the world, it has been less well
publicized in Canada. However, with the rise of the Stephen Harper
government, Canada too has been singled out for its mistreatment of
science. For example, a February editorial in the prestigious journal
Nature slammed the Harper government for muzzling Environment Canada
scientists and for closing the office of the national science adviser.

The scientific evaluation of Insite, Vancouver's supervised injection
site, has also been challenging for the Harper government. The Tories
clearly favour a get-tough, U.S.-style, "war on drugs" approach, and
in their new "anti-drug strategy" there is no room for
public-health-based strategies such as supervised injection sites
that fall under the rubric of "harm reduction"-despite the wealth of
scientific evidence to support these interventions.

As scientists, we were contracted by Vancouver Coastal Health to
conduct an arm's-length evaluation of Insite. After three years of
evaluation, we published 22 studies that described the impacts of
Insite. These studies appeared in various peer-reviewed medical
journals-including the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet,
and the British Medical Journal-and showed that Insite was doing
exactly what it was set up to do. This fairly small and simple
public-health program was contributing to reductions in the number of
people injecting in public and the number of discarded syringes on
city streets. Insite was also helping to reduce HIV-risk behaviour
and likely saving lives that might otherwise have been lost to fatal
overdose. We also found a 30-percent increase in the use of
detoxification programs among Insite users in the year after the site
opened. Potential harms were ruled out as research showed that the
opening of Insite did not increase crime or lead more vulnerable
citizens to take up injection-drug use.

Despite this large body of scientific evidence, the Harper government
remained unconvinced of the merits of Insite. Harper stated publicly
that he would look to the RCMP for their evaluation of Insite, and
when asked to renew the federal exemption that allows Insite to
operate legally, Health Minister Tony Clement gave a brief extension
and called for more research. The RCMP did end up paying SFU
criminology professor Ray Corrado to conduct an external evaluation
of our research. Although Corrado fully agreed with our findings,
Clement was unconvinced. He gave Insite another brief extension,
called for yet more research, and formed a national "expert advisory
committee" to commission new research and comment on the state of the
evidence pertaining to Insite.

Last week, the expert advisory committee released its report. It
stated that Insite is helping to reduce public disorder, HIV-risk
behaviour, and overdose risks, and is helping people get into
addiction treatment. The committee also stated that Insite is not
increasing crime and/or encouraging people to start injecting drugs.
Sound familiar? But that is not all. The committee also added that
the site appears to be cost-effective and is popular among the
public, including among local police officers.

The next chapter in this story should be an interesting one. Will
Harper and Clement continue their call for more research on Insite?
Will they dismiss the findings of their handpicked committee and
start over? Perhaps they will give up and let those crazy West Coast
folks do what they want when it comes to protecting the health of
Vancouver's most marginalized citizens. Maybe they will remain
tight-lipped, wait for a majority, and then try to close Insite.
Whatever their next move, it will not go unnoticed, as this
government may already have garnered a reputation for being the most
antiscience government in Canadian history.