The presentation by Dr John Rex detailed a collection of recent work done on small steam health in British Columbia. He emphasized the downstream importance of his study systems, and the comparative lack of protections that they are afforded. It was fascinating to listen to someone so comprehensively knowledgeable about their subject matter. He detailed a set of studies, their methods, main results, and ongoing questions. The range of stressors to stream health included fire, cut blocks, beetle killed trees, and looking at predictions of climate change. Regrowth quantity, type, and timing were measured, as well as stream health indicators such as silt, invertebrate community, and shade quality and quantity. The work looked comprehensive, complex, and executed with a long-term plan in mind for research.

Despite the quality of the work, the key issue that struck me was the disconnect between the level of work performed by him and the other teams and the lack of an impact on legislation. This is particularly striking given that the presenter is a researcher with the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources operation, and Rural Development.

Science often happens somewhat in a vacuum, isolated from the management of the systems that it studies. So how does the government science find itself also isolated like this? My question is predicated on the notion that the science is right. If the question is purely driven from a love of these natural systems, the science is correct. Why would our elected officials ignore the best advice available?

Government is not an institution dedicated to the preservation of natural systems. It must make value judgements about what we as a society think is most valuable, and it weighs the natural world in that balance alongside the economy, ways of life, and recreation. The idea that “sustainability” is something that everything is dependent on has still to truly seep into the fabric of decision making. I suppose Dr Rex and colleges can help us understand the consequences of our collective choices over the coming decades.

Personally, this is troubling. I have worked for government for 4 years, during which I managed to touch on many different research programs. I have seen the impacts that quality information can have on legislation and regulation, as well as the struggles that a lack of scientific information can cause managers and elected officials. If the political will is there, government science can be a strong force for positive governance. I am very curious as to the particular why that prevented Dr Rex’s work from being taken into consideration more fully.