DFO’s hidden science threatens wild salmon recovery

It took months of meetings, written requests and public pressure to receive an official response from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to a 1.5-year-long wait for a request related to a widely condemned DFO report. This report found, contrary to mountains of peer-reviewed evidence, that infestations of sea lice on open-net salmon farms do not influence numbers of lice on wild salmon. Our appeal was simple: For the report’s authors to share the data used to reach their conclusion, to enable us to reproduce the analysis—a fundamental principle of modern science. The eventual response? A data sheet with much of the key data removed.

Early in my career as a research biologist, I assumed my toughest challenge would be understanding nature’s intricate ecological systems, such as the complex interplay between diseases, their hosts and the environment. Instead, much of my attention has shifted to something much more disheartening—battling a DFO bureaucracy that systematically redacts and censors its own scientific data and scientists.

The DFO is currently under investigation by the Integrity Commissioner for silencing its own scientists. As a result of this interference, DFO science advice continues to reach conclusions that support a low risk to wild salmon, in contrast to the peer-reviewed international evidence that concludes the opposite.

In not sharing the data, the DFO is protecting industry interests from public scrutiny, counter to the intent of the DFO’s policy on science integrity, which emphasizes transparency and open access. When data is selectively presented or censored, the result is that corporations are shielded from accountability, and the role of evidence in decision-making is undermined. This manoeuvring feeds long-held criticisms of the DFO’s conflicting mandates—to protect ecosystems while also promoting and regulating fisheries and aquaculture.

As a research scientist studying the impact of salmon farms on the environment, I was compelled to co-write a perspective paper, published by the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, describing in detail how this dynamic plays out in the regulation of aquaculture in B.C. I am not alone in my criticism—several reports from within the federal government have raised concerns about the DFO’s science advice on salmon aquaculture, including from the Office of the Auditor General, the Office of the Chief Science Advisor and the Parliamentary Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

The DFO’s risk assessments of salmon pathogens are very narrow in scope, and most notably, in the past its science review processes have been dominated by industry voices, facilitated by movement of individuals between positions in the salmon farming industry and regulatory roles at DFO. This is a well-used tactic: Co-opt the regulatory body and its science, while marginalizing any scientists who disagree with your message as “activists”.

The federal government is currently finalizing a transition plan for salmon aquaculture in B.C. as well as reviewing the link between sea-lice on farms and wild salmon.

Without reliable government science advice to inform the transition plan, there is a risk the outcome might not provide the protection that wild salmon populations need to recover. For the sea-lice review, the science community is waiting to see if recently introduced changes to the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat process itself will help insulate the process from industry and political influence.

Rather than small tweaks, a fundamental change is needed in the way DFO reviews science for decision making. An independent science advisory body should be established to insulate science from political and corporate influence. The DFO’s current science advice system is compromised by conflicts of interest, with non-science actors influencing critical decisions about fisheries management. An independent body must ensure that science is science—impartial, evidence-based, transparent, and independently reviewed.

These hallmarks of robust scientific integrity must be implemented to renew trust and protect Canada’s fisheries and marine ecosystems for future generations. If adopted, they would represent a meaningful step toward turning around the DFO’s reputation as an evidence-based organization and as an organization committed to long-term ecological and economic sustainability.•

Gideon Mordecai is a research associate at the University of British Columbia

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}