Where Are All the Scientists in Parliament?

This article is dedicated to Kirsty Duncan, a scientist-turned-parliamentarian who championed evidence, integrity, and the role of science in public decision-making.

Keywords: Evidence-based policy, Canadian democracy, Science in Parliament

It’s no surprise that most of our major challenges — from climate change and the energy transition to the rise of artificial intelligence and the quest to build resilient health and innovation systems — turn on questions of science and technology.  What may shock some, however, is the lack of scientific training amongst those who shape, debate, and make policy decisions where understanding of science and technology is central to good decision-making. Indeed, as Canada confronts these big, challenging, deeply scientific problems in another wave of nation-building, it begs the question: where are the scientists in Parliament?

It’s not a supply problem: according to Statistics Canada, more than 200,000 Canadians are employed in research and development – a similar number to manufacturing, and about two-thirds of total oil and gas employment. Yet only 12 of 343 current MPs, or 3.5 percent, have had careers in Research & Development, of which only three, or 0.9 percent, are physical scientists by profession. Further, the ten-member Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Research contains only one research scientist, joined by an engineer, a physician and seven members with non-scientific backgrounds.

Of course, parliament need not mirror the country’s demographics exactly, but the gap is more striking than for other professions. Like farmers, teachers, lawyers, or business executives, scientists are community leaders, too: they teach, volunteer and innovate in ways that improve Canadians’ lives. 

Holding public office at any level of government is not a detour from a scientist’s calling, but an extension of it. When scientists bring their training directly into elected roles, the results can be tangible and lasting. These examples are not outliers. As Health Minister, Jane Philpott drew on her medical expertise to advance data-driven responses to the opioid crisis. The late Kirsty Duncan leveraged her scientific background to launch the Standing Committee on Science and Research and establish the Office of the Chief Science Advisor. In British Columbia, Andrew Weaver applied his climate science expertise to help shape CleanBC, a framework to substantially reduce provincial greenhouse gas emissions. Public policy development and decision-making works better when our democratically elected representatives reflect the full range of Canada’s skills, mindsets, and experiences, and scientific voices are essential if the country is to navigate the 21st century with foresight rather than hindsight.

Science advisors do provide a critical service to government but, by the nature of the job, advisors are not decision makers. We need the research experience inside caucus rooms where priorities are set and compromises are struck. A 2022 survey by the Canadian Science Policy Centre found that MPs are willing to share scientific information in caucus and Parliament — but those discussions are more strongly rooted in fact when experts are in the room. 

Scientists are trained to weigh evidence, grapple with uncertainty, collaborate with colleagues holding differing opinions, and think long-term. This matters most on issues where the strongest evidence collides with the strongest opinions. Lasting and effective political action on climate, the energy transition, public health, migration, or food security requires decisions grounded more than ever in data, and less than ever in ideology and the shorter-term focus of the next election. This is especially important today, when misinformation erodes public trust.

Canada produces some of the best scientists in the world and better participation of scientists in elected office could enrich the political debate now on national-building and how we tackle the big challenges ahead of us.  Canada’s political parties would be well-served by actively recruiting more candidates with scientific backgrounds, just as they do with lawyers, business leaders, and activists. Scientists, for their part, should also heed the call to public service and become more engaged in civic life, including elected office. Doing so will also help safeguard evidence-based policy and the credibility of our institutions. 

Science sheds light, not heat, on the most wicked of problems. Canada needs more scientists in office now.  Tomorrow may be too late.

Bio: Dr. Christopher Caputo is an Associate Professor and Tier II Canada Research Chair in Chemistry at York University, and an Action Canada Fellow involved in national science-policy initiatives.
Email: [email protected]