On Wild Salmon Day, Let Science Lead the Way for Wild Salmon 

Photo credit: Tavish Campbell 

Guest op-ed by Dr Gideon Mordecai 
Research Associate 
Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries 
University of British Columbia 

Considering the multitude of stressors they face, for Pacific salmon populations to have any chance at recovery, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) must rely on the best available evidence to inform decisions related to their management. 

As an independent scientist investigating the diversity of pathogens that infect salmon, I’ve witnessed first hand the gross inaccuracy of government science advice when it comes to the disease risks posed by open-net pen salmon farming.  

The pathogens which have the largest impact on wild salmon are those associated with salmon farming, and unfortunately DFO are infamous for not following the evidence related to the aquaculture related disease risks posed to wild salmon. While these diseases pose a continual threat to wild salmon health and survival, government science outputs bow to industry pressure, ignoring or suppressing inconvenient evidence to underreport the actual risk posed. 

Scientists (including the government's own scientists) have repeatedly highlighted the potential risk posed to wild salmon as a result of disease transmission from open-net salmon farms, but DFO repeatedly finds a way to deny, downplay or suppress the evidence. As a result, DFO’s conclusions routinely contradict the broader body of international, peer-reviewed science.  

For example, DFO science advice concluded that the presence of parasitic sea lice on wild juvenile salmon is not associated with sea lice from nearby salmon farms. A plethora of peer-reviewed research finds the opposite. DFO’s disease agent assessment for Piscine orthoreovirus concludes that the lineage of in BC is not an ‘infectious disease agent’ (despite the evidence linking this virus with disease on farms and in wild fish), and that the bacterial pathogen Tenacibaculum is not “likely to cause disease…in wild fish populations” (despite mounting evidence finding the opposite). None of these claims hold up to scientific scrutiny, and the scientific literature concludes the opposite (reviewed here).  

As a researcher external to these processes, I am continually dismayed that the official government science advice is so far off the mark when it comes to key issues which influence the health of wild salmon populations, especially as wild salmon are such a fundamental part of coastal ecosystems, Indigenous culture and way of life, and economic livelihoods. 

How did we end up in a situation where official government science advice diverges so significantly from the current scientific consensus? Industry capture of DFO science review processes has been well documented; key documents can be authored by industry associated scientists and aquaculture-focused DFO staff whose role is to  “support aquaculture development”. The result is government science advice that does not stand up to scientific standards, and no clear pathway for external independent scientists to weigh in. This is particularly urgent in the context of Canada’s planned transition away from open-net pen aquaculture in British Columbia. If this transition is to succeed in safeguarding wild salmon, it must be rooted in the best available science, not politically convenient narratives. While social and economic considerations rightfully play a role in the decision making process, these must be insulated from the science advice on these issues, not an influence on the science outcome itself. 

As other threats, such as climate change, intensify beyond immediate control, the case for ensuring decision makers are adequately informed and able to act on the evidence on this preventable risk is stronger than ever. 

The Solution? To give wild salmon populations a chance at recovery, DFO must adhere to its own policy on science integrity. Government documents purportedly based on science (such as DFO’s disease agent assessment forms) must be made publicly available, scientific reports need to be independently reviewed, and data sets should be made public. Ultimately, these will serve to ensure the quality of DFO’s science outputs. Science is one of the strongest tools we have for informed decision-making, but to be credible and effective it needs to be implemented with transparency, open data, and the opportunity for external validation.  

For these reasons, myself and colleagues have been advocating for Canada to establish an independent fisheries science advisory body, free from political and industry influence. This new body could deliver credible science advice to inform what are often contentious decisions on managing Canada’s fisheries. Science is just one component of policy-making, but it's a critical one. Too often, groups with vested interests claim to be ‘following the science’ while failing to adhere to its key scientific principles. 

To protect and recover wild salmon populations, robust evidence is needed to inform a path forward. But to serve this role, science needs integrity, transparency, and the support that allows it to remain science in practice, not just in name.