Few scientists employed by the federal government are able to share their expertise freely with journalists, and most are not shielded from political interference before publicly discussing their work, says a landmark new report.

The report, entitled “Can Scientists Speak? Grading communication policies for federal government scientists,” was released Wednesday by Simon Fraser University and science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy.

The report evaluated 16 federal government departments that employ scientists on their media and communications policies, issuing them scores in five areas: current and accessible communications policies; open and timely access to scientists; political interference; rights to free speech; and dispute resolution policies and whistleblower protections.

The authors then issued each department a letter grade based on its overall score.

More than 85 per cent of the departments that were assessed received a “C” grade or lower, the report found.

Media policies “do not support open and timely communication between scientists and journalists, nor do they protect scientists’ right to free speech,” the report says. Policies also “do not protect against political interference in science communication.”

The Department of National Defence received the highest grade, a “B,” while the Canadian Space Agency, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Industry Canada and Natural Resources Canada all received grades of “F.”

On the issue of political interference, for example, only the Department of National Defence does not require that its scientists get approval before giving media interviews, the report found.

Federal government scientists are often involved in evaluating the safety of Canadians’ food and water, and evaluating the safety and efficacy of medicines, industrial chemicals and other consumer products, the report notes. Scientists are the “best spokespeople for their own work,” and it is “essential” that they be able to communicate freely.

“Our findings are concerning because current media policies could prevent taxpayer-funded scientists from sharing their expertise with the public on important issues from drug safety to climate change,” Evidence for Democracy’s Executive Director Dr. Katie Gibbs said in a statement.

“This information is essential for people to see how science is used in government decision-making, and thus be able to hold the government accountable.”

The report also compared the Canadian departments to their U.S. counterparts, which were evaluated by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2008 and again in 2013.

According to Wednesday’s report, all but one of the Canadian departments scored lower than the U.S. average in 2013.

The issue of widespread muzzling of federal government scientists has made headlines in recent years, the report notes. Complaints from scientists themselves and the resulting media coverage have spurred an investigation by Canada’s Information Commissioner. That probe is ongoing.

Meanwhile, a survey conducted by Environics and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada found that 90 per cent of federal scientists feel that they cannot speak freely about their work.

Last year, scientists held “Stand Up for Science” rallies in more than a dozen cities across Canada to decry funding cuts they say will compromise evidence-based decision-making.

The report includes recommendations for each department, as well as five overall recommendations for improving communication policies for scientists. The general recommendations include:

  • making media policies publicly available online;
  • issuing explicit statements that scientists can speak freely about their research;
  • giving scientists the right to conduct a final review of materials for the media that rely substantially on their work;
  • having a “personal views exception” to allow scientists to express their personal opinions;
  • establishing whistleblower protections and dispute resolution policies.