Dear Mr. Ashfield,

I'm writing to support the concerns and the action requested by Jeffrey Hutchings in his letter to you of March 19, 2012, as president of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution, which can be found here: http://www.ecoevo.ca/en/CSEE%20Letter%20to%20Minister%20Ashfield%20English.pdf

As indicated in the letter, the society is a non-partison group of ecologists and evolutionary biologists from across Canada wiith some 1000 members. I am not a member of this society but I am also very concerned about actions that risk destroying habitat and putting Canada's wildlife in danger.

The letter expresses grave concerns about the Government of Canada's proposed changes to Sectino 35(1) of the Fisheries Act which are contained in Bill C-38, the budget implementation bill, or the Jobs, Growth and Prosperity Act.

Specifically:

1. The CSEE is concerned that the proposed changes were not informed by a full and appropriate consideration of the best available science;

2. The CSEE is concerned that the proposed changes will prevent Canada from fulfilling its national and international commitments to sustain biodiversity; and

3. The CSEE is concerned that the proposed changes will prevent Canada from fulfilling its legislated responsibilities under the Species at Risk Act.

In other words, it appears that the proposed changes could lead to increased loss of habitat and loss of the fish, plants and other aquatic or marine organisms that inhabit those habitats, and including whole species, rather than their protection and enhancement. No doubt, if that wildlife is lost, it will impact on the terrestrial ecosystems associated with it as well.

You know, once a species is extinct, that's it. There is no getting it back. Is that really okay with you?

Mr. Hutchings concludes, "In the interests of all sectors of Canadian society, we request that you withdraw the proposed revisions and maintain the current wording of Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act."

Please listen to him!

Yours sincerely,

Nora Lee
Ottawa, Canada

April 13, 2010

TO CSEE MEMBERS

As many of you are probably aware, hundreds of Canadian scientists and students, many CSEE members, use the logistical support of Natural Resources Canada's Polar Continental Shelf Program (PCSP) to conduct research throughout the Canadian north. Unfortunately, flat funding and escalating costs have forced the PCSP to greatly reduce the logistical support of Canadian research, including the most competitive peer-reviewed research programs.  Research programs deemed "high priority" by independent scientific review face further shortfalls on the order of 25-40% of budgeted expenses. This issue was recently highlighted in an editorial in the influential international journal Nature (see earlier posting on our website), which noted that "Canadian scientists working in the Arctic often find themselves with government grants to do research, but no funds for the helicopters and sea-planes needed to get people and gear to field sites" (Nature 463: 7278, 14 January 2010). Because of the urgency of this issue for our society, I have written to Prime Minister Harper, Ministers with relevant portfolios, and to Suzanne Fortier, President of NSERC to alert them to our concerns. My letter is available here. 

Spencer C.H. Barrett
President
CSEE

February 16, 2010
TO CSEE MEMBERS:

In November 2009, the CSEE executive committee reviewed and endorsed an open letter to Prime Minister Harper and all Members of Parliament, noting that climate change impacts were worse than generally predicted and government mitigation efforts were less than needed. As an advocate for the clear and appropriate communication of science to decision-makers and society, CSEE has a responsibility to speak up on major issues of science that fall within the Society's expertise. The impact of climate change is one of those issues. Our endorsement of the letter, which appeared on the CSEE and WWF websites, was catalytic: within four weeks, 850 scientists and eleven more science societies signed on.

As we have seen in the media of late, climate change science has been under attack. A typical commentary is Margaret Wente's column published in the Globe and Mail on February 5, 2009. A response from WWF-Canada appeared on February 9, referencing the scientists' letter to Prime Minister Harper and the essential role of science in underpinning environmental policy-making.

I hope you find these articles of interest.

Spencer C.H. Barrett
President
CSEE

29 January 2009
Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada

Dear Mr. Harper:

I write on behalf of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution, representing more than 600 Canadian scientists, to share our alarm over proposed budget cuts to Canada's federal granting councils.  Like other Canadians, we applaud your use of Government programs and funding to ease the current financial stresses on Canada's economy.  But reduced funding to scientific research will erode Canada's ability to innovate, and thus delay economic recovery and improved welfare for Canadians.

Within NSERC, the Discovery Grant Program stands out above all others in its ability to advance knowledge.  International review praised NSERC discovery grants for their efficiency in producing world-class research.  Sadly, Canadian investment in discovery, in terms of fixed dollars, has declined consistently since 1999.  Meanwhile, the cost of research increases annually.  Both problems are especially acute in the fields of evolution and ecology, two of the key disciplines charged with responsibility to solve problems of climate change and the global loss of biodiversity.

I urge you to re-evaluate Canada's investment in science and NSERC discovery.  I ask you to work with Canada's other Political Parties to find creative mechanisms that will provide the operating funds our scientists require to pursue knowledge.  Failure to increase direct funding for science will jeopardize the gains made through improved infrastructure, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Research Chairs program, and your government's investment in post-graduate scholarships. 

Sincerely yours,

Douglas Morris
President, Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution

Response from Minister Goodyear (July 2009)

Honourable Gary Goodyear
Minister of State for Science and Technology
Government of Canada

Dear Mr. Goodyear:
 
I write to you as President of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution, representing more than 600 scientists from all regions of Canada.
I am shocked by today’s story in the Globe and Mail with the headline “Science minister won’t confirm belief in evolution”.  Indeed, belief has nothing to do with it.  Evolution and natural selection are scientific facts.  Their main tenets have never been dis-proven and there is no credible alternative scientific theory.  The assumptions of evolution and natural selection are valid, the predictions confirmed, and evolution is practiced daily by every plant and animal breeder, every scientist developing new vaccines, and every attempt to reduce antibiotic and pesticide resistance. 
Our understanding of biology, ecology, conservation of the world’s biodiversity, and our ability to develop and apply biotechnology, depend explicitly on the science of evolution.  I urge you to clarify your statement on evolution and to recognize evolution as fact.  Canada’s scientists and citizenry must know that the Government of Canada is committed to advancing science, discovery, and knowledge.
 
Sincerely,
 
Douglas Morris
President, Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution
 
cc.       Right Honourable Stephen Harper
            Michael Ignatieff       
            Jack Layton
            Gilles Duceppe

Scientists sound off

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 | 12:02 PM ET

By Paul Jay, CBCNews.ca. Yesterday we asked a number of researchers in Canada for their reaction to the story about federal Science Minister Gary Goodyear's response to the question of whether he believes in evolution. Since then, Mr. Goodyear has responded to the controversy, but his answer still left room for interpretation as to his views.
Normally when we send out generic requests for comments to researchers in the scientific community, a fraction of the researchers respond. Those that don't either decline because they aren't comfortable with the subject material, or else are away in the field and unable to respond. But something about this issue touched a nerve, and the response was overwhelming. One researcher even responded to say he wouldn't be able to comment, but only because his wife had just given birth that day.
Many of these comments appear in our story from Tuesday, but some did not. Here then is a sampling of some of the reaction from scientists:
Douglas W. Morris, President, Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution: "Evolution and natural selection are scientific facts. They are built on a clear set of assumptions and logic. Their predictions have been confirmed on inumerable occasions. No credible alternative theory exists. A minister of science should be expected to know these things and to acknowledge them."

Honourable Tony Clement
Minister of Industry
Government of Canada

Dear Mr. Clement:

I write on behalf of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution, representing more than 600 Canadian scientists, to share our concern over the recent announcement by NSERC
(http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Media-Media/NewsRelease- CommuniqueDePresse_eng.asp?ID=118) that post-graduate scholarships to MSc. students will be limited to a single year of funding. 

Graduate students in ecology and evolutionary biology at most Canadian universities enroll in September, design their research and complete mandatory course instruction through the autumn and winter terms, and enter the field the following spring and summer.  It is impossible for these students to analyze, interpret, and publish their results in those three semesters. 

Under NSERC's new rules these students must convert an otherwise well-designed MSc program into a PhD study in order to maintain scholarship support.  A coherent research plan should not be altered simply to fit administrative and funding priorities.

Canada’s ecologists and evolutionary biologists understand the limitations faced by government and NSERC in these difficult economic times, and that government cutbacks restrict NSERC’s options.  But Canada's government and NSERC must consider fully the outcomes of one-year MSc scholarships.  Master’s degrees, often earned at smaller institutions lacking PhD programs, prepare students for successful and efficient PhD study (typically at larger universities).  While doing so, they represent a critical and irreplaceable resource for undergraduate instruction and diversity in Canadian science.  Shortened scholarship funding will not reduce time to completion for the majority of MSc students.  Lacking scholarships, these students will require subsidy from their supervisor’s Discovery grants, funds that could otherwise have been used to direct the research of additional students.

In order to deal with these problems, the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution recommends:

1.  That Government and NSERC provide scholarships to all eligible graduate students during the time period typically required for successful and efficient study.

2.  An independent review of the appropriate time-to-completion for research-based Master of Science degrees in Canadian Universities.

3.  Immediate infusion of funds to NSERC to reinstate two-year MSc scholarships pending the results of the review process.

Our future ability to solve problems associated with such issues as climate change, species extinctions, sustainable fisheries, invading pests and pathogens, and the environmental health of Canadians depends directly on our ability to educate and train the very best scientists for the job.  Now is not the time to discourage students from attaining a Master of Science degree.
 
Sincerely,
 
Douglas Morris, President, Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution

Response from Minister Clement (June 2009)

Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons, Ottawa, ON

Dear Mr. Harper:

I write on behalf of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution with an offer to assist the Government of Canada in fulfilling its science and technology strategy.

The Society's nearly 900 professional scientists represent the interests of an exceptional community that includes a disproportionately large percentage of the world's leaders in both ecology and evolutionary biology. Our members seek solutions to many of the most pressing problems facing Canadians. Examples of current research priorities include climate change, invasive species, biodiversity, fisheries and aquaculture, forest science, and resistance by pests and pathogens to control agents. Our research bears directly on Canada's ability to invest in new technologies related to such diverse fields as genomics, clean energy, and conservation. But Canada's capacity to lead research in these vital areas, and to benefit future Canadians, is constrained by limited funding for scientific discovery through Canada's Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). Canadian investment in discovery, in terms of fixed dollars, has declined consistently since 1999 while the costs of doing research increase annually.

The Council's Discovery Grants program was praised highly in two recent international reviews. Both reviews noted that Canada receives excellent value from its investment in Discovery. The reviews suggested improvements, implemented by NSERC during 2009, to more fairly allocate funds among researchers. Although mean grant sizes under the new allocation system increased by approximately $4,000, the success rate of applicants to the Discovery Grants program fell from 71.3% in 2008 (2,428 of 3,405 applicants) to only 63.8% in 2009 (2,048 of 3,210 applicants, source: 2009 Competition Statistics Discovery Grants Program, http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Discovery-Decouverte/2009_Stats_e.pdf). During the same time, the percentage of funds awarded relative to funds requested fell from a funding rate of 39% ($75.6 million awarded vs $193.9 million requested; calculations rounded from data listed on the NSERC website) in 2008 to 38.3% ($78.7 million awarded vs $205.4 million requested) in 2009.
The low success rate means that 240 research scientists who would have qualified for funding in 2008 received no funds in 2009. Using the 2008 benchmark of a 71.3% success rate, the 2009 Discovery Grants program was underfunded by $9.2 million (240 x average grant of $38,416 in 2009). The low funding rate, where the $118.3 million shortfall in 2008 increased to $126.7 million in 2009, means that Canadian scientists are not able to work to their research capacity and must over-rely on outdated technology to reduce operating costs. Such reductions were neither recommended, nor anticipated, by the reviews. Canada lost more than 7% of its eligible researchers in a single year, and the demonstrated need for funds is now more than 2.5 times greater than the Government's allocation. If Canada is to fulfill its science and technology strategy, then:

• The Government of Canada should redress the decline in funded NSERC scientists by allocating an additional $9 million to the 2010 NSERC Discovery Grants competition.

• The Government of Canada should allocate additional annual increases to reduce the mismatch between the costs of research and monies available in the Discovery Grants program.

I am confident that Canada's scientists will use those funds wisely and productively to build a more prosperous and healthy future for all of Canada's citizens.

Yours sincerely,

Douglas Morris
President, Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution

There is overwhelming evidence that life has evolved over thousands of millions of years. The ancestors of modern organisms, as well as whole groups that are now completely extinct, have been found in great abundance as fossils. The main processes responsible for evolutionary change, such as variation and natural selection, have been repeatedly observed and verified in natural populations and in laboratory experiments. All the features of living organisms, including those discovered in the recent advances in molecular biology, are readily explained by the principles of evolution. Any scientific theory that provides a clear mechanism, offers a broad explanation of natural phenomena, receives strong support from observation and experiment and that is never refuted by careful investigation is usually called a “fact”. The cell theory of organisms, the germ theory of infection, the gene theory of inheritance and the theory of evolution are all facts. Teaching alternative theories as though they had equivalent scientific status is a perversion of education that damages children’s ability to understand the natural world. In particular, creationism is a religious doctrine long since known to be a fallacious account of Earth history that has no scientific standing and cannot be represented as a credible alternative to evolution. Evolution is the single most important principle of modern biology and the foundation of any sound biology curriculum.

Graham Bell
President, Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution