Scientists fear political meddling after Ontario premier vows to hunt down anyone testing on dogs

Some researchers say they're concerned about possible political interference in science after Ontario's premier said he would be "hunting down" scientists who use dogs and cats in medical studies.

On Tuesday, Premier Doug Ford said it was unacceptable for beagles to be used in cardiac research that had been approved by London's Lawson Research Institute and St. Joseph's Health Care London, and promised to introduce legislation to ban testing on certain animals.

"I have now directed our team to start hunting down anyone else doing research on dogs or cats," Ford told a news conference in Windsor. "If you're doing this with dogs or cats, you gotta stop before I catch you. ... We're going to legislate this ... You aren't gonna be going after animals like that."

Félix Proulx-Giraldeau is executive director of Evidence for Democracy, which advocates for integrating scientific evidence in government decision-making.

Proulx-Giraldeau took issue with Ford referencing specific medical work.

"In this case, what was a little bit concerning was the threat that seemed to be directly addressed to certain researchers," he said.

"We have a strong and independent ethics board in Canada, and their job is specifically to review and oversee all research to ensure it's humane and necessary. My concern is that when politicians publicly direct what kinds of research can or cannot be done, especially with language that sounds like a threat, it risks bypassing those established processes."

Ford's comments came after a report by the Investigative Journalism Bureau at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health revealed researchers were inducing three-hour heart attacks in dogs before euthanizing them.

On Monday, St. Joseph's said it would immediately end research involving dogs "following consultations with the province."

CBC News has made multiple requests for an interview, but the hospital has declined. Ford's office has not responded to questions about whether it directly ordered the cardiac testing to end.

Institutions with researchers seeking federal funding are also required to have an animal care committee (ACC) to oversee any animal-based research.

Lawson Research Institute's ACC is through Western University in London.

"I can tell you from my many years on the ACC, there isn't a single researcher, veterinarian, vet tech or animal care worker that doesn't have animal welfare at heart," Western ACC chair Arthur Brown said. "But there's an equal amount of pride and accomplishment in terms of what we've been able to do in terms of scientific, and in particular medical, advancements. It's a nuanced and complex issue.

The Investigative Journalism Bureau's article "brought out an emotional response in many people, and this included the premier, so it's sort of understandable how he would want to respond. I just wish he would have taken a step back."

Brendon Samuels, who served on Western's ethics committee when he was a graduate student, thinks the hospital's decision to end its animal research came down to political pressure.

"It's a bit unusual and unprecedented in the sense that normally if research activities were to be discontinued, it would come at the direction of a regulatory body that would have good reason for doing that," he said, adding that welfare committees also check on animals' status throughout the research process.

"This is overstepping the role of oversight bodies and expert consensus to deal with issues on the front lines. I don't think it is appropriate for politicians to be micromanaging, inserting themselves and arbitrating what is considered proper or improper in these regulated environments," Samuels said.

The broader concern of politicians interfering with research, according to Proulx-Giraldeau, is an erosion of public trust in science.

"It makes it look like evidence is secondary to political opinion," he said, pointing to cuts to medical and other scientific research in the U.S. since the start early this year of President Donald Trump's second administration.

"When we see political figures discourage researchers from pursuing certain topics, even those with potential benefits, it actually weakens our research environment as a whole and our global reputation when it comes to research."

Proulx-Giraldeau said political interference also perpetuates myths that scientists are paid by the government to do as they're told.

"This is not true in reality, so when we have examples like this of science being steered in a direction that works against independence … it really works against the public image of science."

Still, all three researchers agree that politicians should have a voice in scientific research, so long as it is informed.

"All research is political. What questions we ask, what we invest resources into, how we approach those questions and how we publish those results is culturally determined and political," Samuels said. "I think politicians have an important role to play in driving forward regulatory improvements."

Brown said political involvement also allows the public to be part of scientific discussion.

"I think the public should have a say through their politicians, who then enact regulations that are carried out for them. That's what we do have [already] — we just need to use it or let it operate correctly."