This amphibian conundrum – the squeezing of Cascades frogs in an ecological vice – is one of many wicked problems that Palen takes on by means of strategic, systems thinking. Following postdoctoral research at University of California-Berkeley, Palen took up a professorship at Simon Fraser University (SFU) in Burnaby, near the city of Vancouver, in 2007. In collaboration with three other SFU faculty, Palen co-founded the Earth to Ocean research group in 2010. Within that multi-scientist group, Palen has been part of a collaborative effort to help students “communicate their science in ways that I don’t see at a lot of in other PhD level programs,” says Kissel, who now works for Conservation Science Partners, a US-based non-profit scientific collective.

Palen’s quest to encourage communication and collaboration - to make research matter in the wider world - goes far beyond her academic home turf. Atop Burnaby mountain, where the utilitarian concrete of the 60s-built Simon Fraser university contrasts starkly with the stunning background of Vancouver’s north shore mountains, an aboriginal frog design hangs framed on Palen office wall. Here, she runs a laboratory of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, teaches and provides work experience for undergraduates, and heads multiple research collaborations. But her sphere of influence extends well beyond this academic realm. Palen is deeply engaged in communicating science - not only hers, but that of others -  strategically nudging at policy pivot points outside the ivory tower.

Pushing for evidence-based policy in Canadian government
In Canada and the US, Palen “has her finger in almost every pot that has anything to do with science and policy,” says Katie Gibbs, Executive Director of Evidence for Democracy (E4D), a not-for-profit organization that took root in the era when Canada’s government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was muzzling federal scientists. In what many scientists now reflect on as a dark time in Canadian history for science and democracy, the Harper government became infamous for requiring high level approval for scientists to deliver “approved lines” to media while flanked by bureaucratic babysitters, sometimes stalling media access to government scientists until news windows had passed, or outright forbidding scientists to speak to journalists about their work. The cases later investigated and confirmed by Canada’s federal Information Commissioner, were numerous. In 2011, for example, top bureaucrats silenced government fisheries scientist Kristi Miller (now Miller-Saunders) from speaking about her work as her salmon virus research was published in Science, a muzzling story broken by Canadian science journalist Margaret Munro.

“The muzzling of federal scientists was an issue I took real notice of,” says Palen. Others did too. On July 10, 2012, Canadian scientists protested en masse with a rally. “Death of Evidence,” a mock funeral in the nation’s capital, was co-led by Gibbs, then a University of Ottawa doctoral student studying endangered species legislation. Satellite marches were held across the country. Alarmed by muzzled federal scientists alongside funding cuts and closure of scientific libraries, the wave of protest thrust Canadian science into the spotlight as never before. Palen was in the field studying frog survival during that summer of scientific discontent, but she followed the news closely from afar. At that time, she says, “a sense of responsibility took hold for me.”

With momentum from the nation-wide protest, Gibbs, who defines herself as a “recovering scientist” in her LinkedIn tagline, co-founded Evidence for Democracy (E4D). E4D is a non-profit, non-partisan organization advocating for evidence-based policy-making, and holding politicians to account for doing so. In the run-up to Canada’s federal election of October 2015, “The role of science and science integrity issues was a top tier part of the political platforms of the Liberals and NDP [New Democratic] parties in a way that I think no one really anticipated, and Evidence for Democracy worked really hard to have that happen,” says Palen.

“One of the lessons learned from that muzzling time was that academic colleagues had a real opportunity to speak up for their [silenced] counterparts in government agencies -- to be that more independent voice calling attention to what was going on and the way that science was being manipulated,” says Palen. Evidence for Democracy, she explains, was a natural outgrowth of that sentiment, and has been a catalyst for big changes in Canada’s public conversation. In the 2015 federal election, Canada brought in a new Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, ousting incumbent Conservative leader Stephen Harper. An explicit promise of the new government was a strong role for science in policy-making. Now, in tallying a score sheet on those scientific election promises, Evidence for Democracy is holding the Trudeau government’s feet to the fire. It engages in regional science integrity issues as well. Eager to participate, when an opportunity arose to join Evidence for Democracy as Chair of its Board of Directors in November 2015, Palen jumped at it. The Board plays a key role in E4D’s strategic decision-making. “That’s really where Wendy plays into it,” Gibbs says.

A report card for Canada’s new government
How has science integrity fared under Canada’s new Trudeau government? Elected on a platform of making science, and open communication for scientists, a priority, results have been mixed, reported Gibbs, Palen and five colleagues, speaking at a session on US and Canadian science integrity at the North American Congress of Conservation Biology (NACCB) held in Toronto, Ontario in July 2018.* There, Gibbs, the session’s opening speaker, outlined that under Trudeau “there absolutely has been a lot of progress… but there is still work to do.”

Gibbs, speaking for E4D, voiced concern over recent government funding cuts to climate and ozone monitoring research and noted that in a survey of Canadian government scientists conducted a year ago, over half still felt unable to speak freely. Nevertheless, explains Gibbs, when a similar survey of government scientists was conducted under the Harper government, that number was 90%, hinting at progress. Shortly after the conference, a new set of scientific integrity guidelines was introduced in a model policy for Canada’s federal departments. How that policy translates into practice remains to be seen. E4D had earlier collaborated with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), the union representing most scientists in government labs, in a campaign that successfully saw science integrity elements enshrined in worker collective agreements.

Palen, speaking at the NACCB session, introduced herself as “an academic scientist, but I try to keep one or more feet planted firmly outside the walls of academia, working on conservation science policy issues,” she said, highlighting that advocacy for science ought not to be “a four letter word.” Science advocacy “is a social and public responsibility for many of us that are funded by public dollars,” she said. Reflecting on the recent history of Canadian politics, covering what she termed the “low lights” of the Harper era - government science job losses, research library closures, erosion of environmental policies affecting environmental assessments, fisheries, and species at risk - Palen struck a hopeful note too. Restoring and improving federal environment legislation under today’s more supportive government may be “a once in a generation opportunity for Canada,” she said.

But lest scientists think that a governmental shift lets them off the hook for continued pressure on advocating on a role for science at the policy table, in her conference abstract, Palen did not mince words: 

Three years after the election of a center-left Liberal government, Canada remains at a crossroads, as campaign promises have run up against powerful industries, and commitments to reduce carbon emissions, protect biodiversity, and reform environmental assessment practices languish. However, commitments to restore scientific integrity and increase transparency are progressing, and these offer hope for meaningful reform through improved public debate, even where governmental leadership is lacking.

From the stage, in Palen’s confident yet slightly enigmatic manner – friendly yet assertive, hopeful yet concerned - she voiced a report card on how well the Trudeau government has done on meeting its scientific promises. While celebrating some hopeful progress - appointment of a Chief Science Advisor, modest improvements in integrity protections for government scientists, marginal improvements to environmental legislation – she has major concerns too. When it comes to meeting its international climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement, Canada, Palen points out, is “not even close to meeting any sort of target that’s even the least ambitious target that we have,” she says. Palen highlights that extraction of Alberta’s oil sands are a significant contributor to Canada’s emissions overshoot, and notes that the possibility of a climate change agreement between Canadian provinces now looks bleak.
Oil sands and pipelines - a political hot potato in Canada - are another of Palen’s pet projects of policy and personal engagement. On Burnaby Mountain, the site of rallies against expansion of the existing Kinder Morgan Alberta-to-British Columbia pipeline, Palen has been known to show up on the protest line.