From Science to Spin: How Behavioral Science Risks to Undermine Scientific Integrity in Canada

The Growing Influence of Behavioral Messaging—and the Responsibility Public Service Scientists and PIPSC Can’t Ignore

Acknowledgment: This article was written with assistance from ChatGPT to ensure factual accuracy and alignment with the Public Servant Code of Values and Ethics, using the prompt (15-minute conversation): "Write an article on why it's harder for scientists to defend truth today due to behavioral science work by the IIU in Canada, integrating previous findings from ATIPs with findings from a Western Standard article." - Read more why and how I use ChatGPT.

Reference:

• IN-DEPTH: Privy Council Office runs psychological unit to shape Canadians’ behaviour. Western Standard, 20 Jul 2025

Related articles on IVIM Subtack:

• Follow-Up: Deep Dive into ATIP 2022-00115 (OPC) - Behavioural Science and Vaccine Communication, DG, Oct 22, 2024

• ATIP OPC: Impressive work from PHAC behavioural scientists on developing "Winning communication strategies" ahead of launching the vaccines, DG, Sep 01, 2024 -

Background: My Commitment to Protect Scientific Integrity in the Public Service

As part of my 2024 campaign for PIPSC Vice-President (Part-Time), I pledged to address political interference in the work of public service scientists.

To support this, I created a public evidence page: https://en.gorodnichy.ca/evidence/political-interference. It highlights examples and raises questions about how science and messaging interact in government.

This article continues my efforts started last year. Prompted by a recent Western Standard publication about the growing role of behavioural science in shaping public opinion, it explores whether such strategies may, at times, override the input of subject matter experts—advancing the conversation I committed to, in a spirit of due diligence and respectful inquiry.

The page dedicated to addressing Political Interference on the work of public service scientists: https://en.gorodnichy.ca/evidence/political-interference

---

Main article: Why It Is Much Harder for Scientists to Defend Scientific Integrity Today Than It Was 15 Years Ago

Recent reporting by the Western Standard has drawn attention to the growing role of behavioral science within the federal government, specifically through the work of the Impact and Innovation Unit (IIU) in the Privy Council Office (PCO). This unit, established under Prime Minister Trudeau, was designed to apply behavioral science to public policy communication. According to published documents and official websites, the IIU has drawn on tools developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international partners.

This development raises a number of questions—particularly for those of us working in science and policy. Has the focus shifted from scientific evidence to behavioral influence when shaping public messages? Are scientists being sidelined in favour of strategic communications developed to achieve specific compliance goals?

These are important questions worth exploring—especially for public servants committed to transparency, accountability, and evidence-based service to Canadians.

A Stark Contrast: Dr. Shiv Chopra and the Union That Once Stood With Him

Let us remember a time when scientific truth had defenders. In 2008, Dr. Shiv Chopra, a Health Canada scientist, risked his career to expose the dangers of bovine growth hormone (BGH) in milk. His tireless advocacy, based on evidence and ethics, helped prevent this dangerous hormone from entering the Canadian food supply.

Back then, the union stood by his side, amplifying his voice rather than silencing it. His story was immortalized in the book "Corrupt to the Core", which detailed the corruption within Health Canada and the courageous resistance by Chopra and his colleagues.

But if that same battle occurred today?

Dr. Chopra would be labeled a disrupter of "social cohesion" or a risk to "public trust." Behavioral scientists would pre-emptively craft reassuring narratives to defuse his concerns before they ever reached the public. Union legal teams, far from defending their member, might weaponize these narratives against him to show alignment with government messaging.

And the truth? It would never make it past the psychological firewall.

How Behavioral Science Became the Government’s Shield

Behavioral science is a field traditionally used to understand human psychology to support better outcomes. Today, however, it appears that in developed countries like Canada, it may also be used to influence public opinion in ways that bypass informed consent, open debate, and scientific dissent.

The IIU doesn’t just advise. It crafts government communications that anticipate and neutralize opposition to controversial policies—from pharmaceutical mandates to environmental regulations. These messages are not based on the data produced by departmental scientists, but on techniques imported from global institutions like the WHO, as noted explicitly on the IIU’s website.

From April 2020 to November 2021, the Privy Council Office implemented the WHO Behavioural Insight Tool within the Canadian context—using it to monitor public knowledge, attitudes, trust, and behaviors as part of COSMO Canada. This official report confirms the tool’s role in shaping government communication during the pandemic.

According to its own website and the Western Standard article, the government spent over $720 million on outcomes-based funding programs and conducted at least 10 behavioral trials aimed at altering public response. These included communication experiments on climate change, immigration, vaccine uptake, and gender ideology.

Meanwhile, departmental scientists working with real-world data often found themselves sidelined, ignored, or outright contradicted by pre-approved narratives shaped by psychological design—not evidence.

Who Decides What Serves the Public Interest?

According to the Government of Canada's whistleblowing portal (PSIC), wrongdoing in the public sector must be reported when it goes against the public interest.

That seems straightforward—but who defines what is in the public interest? Historically, this would be informed by subject matter experts (SME) based on evidence and ethical standards. Increasingly, though, public interest appears to be shaped by communications professionals and behavioral scientists, often with little input from the experts who work directly with the data.

Consider, for example, the mass rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, including to children and pregnant women. While some SMEs raised legitimate concerns about efficacy and potential adverse effects—particularly for younger populations—it became nearly impossible for those concerns to be voiced through official channels or reflected in public messaging.

When experts attempt to raise such concerns, they often discover that the very systems intended to uphold public interest now operate within predefined psychological narratives—leaving little room for dissent based on science. In such an environment, truth risks becoming secondary to perception—and whistleblowing becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

Conclusion

What once sounded like a distant dystopian warning may now be becoming reality. The rise of behavioural messaging as a tool of governance appears to be overshadowing the role of scientific evidence—and, at times, silencing science itself.

Canadians deserve more than perception management. They deserve transparency, open debate, and evidence-based policy—even when the evidence is inconvenient.

That’s why the role of professional institutions like PIPSC is so critical. As the union representing federal scientists, PIPSC has a responsibility not only to defend its members from retaliation, but to ensure that science continues to serve the public interest—not political narratives.

This is exactly why I pledged, in my campaign for a senior executive position at PIPSC, to do my utmost to protect scientific integrity and the public service scientists who uphold it.

Without strong advocacy and accountability, the voices of scientists risk being drowned out by curated messaging—and the truth may remain buried under the weight of strategic persuasion.

Appendices:

• Appendix A: What Is the IIU and Where Do Their Techniques Come From?

• Appendix B: Proof That the Privy Council Office in Canada Adopted Its Behavioral Science Strategies from WHO’s COVID‑19 Toolkit

• Appendix C: Personal Attempt to Report a Scientific Integrity Concern in the Public Interest

References:

• COSMO Canada Project: https://impact.canada.ca/en/good-data/cosmo-canada

• Impact Canada Behavioral Science Overview: https://impact.canada.ca/en/behavioural-science

• WHO Behavioral Insights Tools and COVID Implementation: https://www.who.int/europe/tools-and-toolkits/who-tool-for-behavioural-insights-on-covid-19

• Books documenting Political Interference on Public Service scientists:

  • Dr. Shiv Chopra, "Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower" , 2009 - Available on Amazon. You can also borrow it from PIPSC library.

  • Regina Watteel (Ph.D. Statistics) ,"Fisman Fraud: The Rise of Canadian Hate Science." 2023. Available on Amazon You can also borrow it from me. Highlights of the book: www.fismansfraud.ca

• Electoral Platform of 2024 PIPSC VP Candidate, Dmitry Gorodnichy:

  • Evidence of Political Interference in Public Service: https://en.gorodnichy.ca/evidence/political-interference

  • Additional Data Evidence: Where is the highest Fear of Reprisal according to Public Service Employee Survey: https://en.gorodnichy.ca/evidence/fear-of-reprisal

  • Electoral Platform - Fearless Advice: Harper Era vs. Trudeau Era:
    en.gorodnichy.ca/electoral-platform/fearless-advice

---

Support This Work Across All Channels

If you believe in open dialogue, informed choice, and evidence-based policy, help keep the conversation going. Like and share this article.

You can follow the author here:

• LinkedIn

• Facebook

• Twitter/X

• YouTube (@Dr.Dmitry.Gorodnichy)

Articles remain free to read. Your engagement makes a difference.

---

Appendix A: What Is the IIU and Where Do Their Techniques Come From?

The Impact and Innovation Unit (IIU) is a specialized unit within Canada’s Privy Council Office (PCO), reporting directly to the Prime Minister. According to its mandate, the IIU works to "apply behavioral insights" to improve how the government engages with Canadians. What is left out is that these insights are used not to inform, but to steer public opinion.

Their training methods and models are heavily influenced by the World Health Organization (WHO), which promotes behavior modification techniques through its global Behavioral and Cultural Insights programs.

Highlights from the Western Standard investigation include:

• $720+ million spent on outcome-based funding programs.

• WHO-based methodology applied to track behavioral shifts during COVID.

• COSMO Canada surveys gathered emotional and trust-based response data.

• Pre-programmed emotional strategies to frame climate action, DEI, vaccine uptake.

• Behavioral science now used to define government communication, eclipsing input from subject-matter experts.

All of this may have a value—but it also invites a careful look at how such insights are used. Are they tools for better service delivery, or mechanisms to steer public opinion regardless of the underlying evidence?

It’s not about opposing behavioral science—but about asking how it is governed, by whom, and whether there is space for scientific dissent when its conclusions are inconvenient.

Appendix B: Proof That the Privy Council Office in Canada Adopted Its Behavioral Science Strategies from WHO’s COVID‑19 Toolkit

There is clear documentation showing that Canada’s Privy Council Office (PCO) adopted its behavioral science approaches during the COVID‑19 pandemic directly from the World Health Organization (WHO). This connection helps explain how behavioral insights became central to shaping public communication strategies during recent health crises.

In particular, the PCO used the WHO Behavioural Insight Tool for COVID‑19, which was developed by WHO’s Regional Office for Europe in collaboration with Erfurt University and the COSMO group. This tool was designed to monitor population knowledge, perceptions, trust, and behaviors in real time and to support governments in crafting behaviorally informed communication.

The Government of Canada’s official report, titled “Final Report: COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO Canada)”, confirms this adoption:

"The PCO has implemented the WHO Behavioural Insight Tool to monitor how COVID-19 is understood, perceived, and responded to by Canadians."
— Government of Canada (2022), Final Report: COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO Canada)

The WHO’s own description of the tool outlines its scope and objectives:

World Health Organization (WHO), “WHO Behavioural Insights Tool for COVID-19”, undated.
https://www.who.int/europe/tools-and-toolkits/who-tool-for-behavioural-insights-on-covid-19

Additional references that document this framework and its global applications include:

• Social and Behavioural Insights COVID-19 Data Collection Tool for Africa – Case Study: Pilot Implementation in Nigeria and Zambia
  RCCE Collective (2023)
  https://www.rcce-collective.net/resource/social-and-behavioural-insights-covid-19-data-collection-tool-for-africa-case-study-pilot-implementation-in-nigeria-and-zambia

• New WHO/Europe Tool: Behavioural Insights Critical to Inform COVID-19 Response
  BCI-Hub (2021)
  https://bci-hub.org/news/new-whoeurope-tool-behavioural-insights-critical-inform-covid-19-response

• Behavioural Insights, the WHO and COVID-19
  Behavioural Insights Team blog (2020)
  https://www.bi.team/blogs/behavioural-insights-the-who-and-covid-19

• Using Behavioural Insights to Increase COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake
  Zhang et al., Behavioral Science & Policy, Vol. 7, Issue 2 (2021)
  https://behavioralpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BSP_18Zhang_galley.pdf

• COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO): Monitoring knowledge, risk perceptions, preventive behaviours, and public trust in Germany
  Betsch et al., European Journal of Public Health, Volume 31, Supplement 3 (2021)
  https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/31/Supplement_3/ckab164.292/6404883

These references show how international behavioral science frameworks were adapted into Canada’s response—highlighting a key shift in how public messaging is developed and how that may affect transparency and the role of scientific expertise.

Appendix C: Personal Attempt to Report a Scientific Integrity Concern in the Public Interest

In late 2022, I attempted to file a formal complaint about what, in my view as a senior data scientist, constituted a serious breach of scientific integrity. At the time, I had observed that the Public Health Agency of Canada was presenting “Cases Following Vaccination” vaccine outcome data using aggregation methods that obscured the actual performance of the vaccines. This concern is documented in detail on my evidence portal.

The data presentation seemed to algorithmically reinforce a predetermined narrative of vaccine efficacy, while minimizing or omitting statistical patterns that raised legitimate questions—particularly those emerging from real-world observations.

Believing this to potentially represent a case of wrongdoing against the public interest, I turned to the official whistleblowing mechanism managed by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC).

However, I quickly ran into a problem: the system required me to name a specific individual responsible for the wrongdoing. But in this case, the issue was part of a larger institutional process, not the action of one person. So I couldn’t complete the submission.

I also noticed a message on the site saying they were receiving an “unprecedented number” of complaints and inquiries.

This experience illustrates a broader structural challenge: the current framework for reporting wrongdoing may not align with emerging realities, where institutional narratives are increasingly shaped by behavioral scientists and communications teams—not by the subject-matter experts who work with the data.

As long as the process requires assigning responsibility to identifiable individuals—while the messaging and influence are produced by distributed systems and behavioral strategies—upholding scientific integrity may remain difficult, if not impossible.

---