National climate institutions complement targets and policies.

Institutions can affect coordination, consensus, and strategy.

Scientists' political behaviors are not driven by individual-level government benefits.

Is it appropriate for scientists to engage in political advocacy? Some political critics of scientists argue that scientists have become partisan political actors with self-serving financial agendas. However, most scientists strongly reject this view. While social scientists have explored the effects of science politicization on public trust in science, little empirical work directly examines the drivers of scientists' interest in and willingness to engage in political advocacy. Using a natural experiment involving the U.S. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF-GRF), we causally estimate for the first time whether scientists who have received federal science funding are more likely to engage in both science-related and non-science-related political behaviors. Comparing otherwise similar individuals who received or did not receive NSF support, we find that scientists' preferences for political advocacy are not shaped by receiving government benefits. Government funding did not impact scientists' support of the 2017 March for Science nor did it shape the likelihood that scientists donated to either Republican or Democratic political groups. Our results offer empirical evidence that scientists' political behaviors are not motivated by self-serving financial agendas. They also highlight the limited capacity of even generous government support programs to increase civic participation by their beneficiaries.

The Distribution of Climate Change Public Opinion in Canada.

While climate scientists have developed high resolution data sets on the distribution of climate risks, we still lack comparable data on the local distribution of public climate change opinions. This paper provides the first effort to estimate local climate and energy opinion variability outside the United States. Using a multi-level regression and post-stratification (MRP) approach, we estimate opinion in federal electoral districts and provinces. We demonstrate that a majority of the Canadian public consistently believes that climate change is happening. Belief in climate change's causes varies geographically, with more people attributing it to human activity in urban as opposed to rural areas. Most prominently, we find majority support for carbon cap and trade policy in every province and district. By contrast, support for carbon taxation is more heterogeneous. Compared to the distribution of US climate opinions, Canadians believe climate change is happening at higher levels. This new opinion data set will support climate policy analysis and climate policy decision making at national, provincial and local levels.

A snapshot of community-based research in Canada: Who? What? Why? How?

Community-Based Research (CBR) is rapidly gaining recognitions as an important tool in addressing complex environmental, health and social problems. However, little is known about the Canadian CBR context. A web-based survey including 25 questions was circulated on list-servs and via targeted e-mails to investigate the status of CBR in Canada. Univariate and bivariate statistical analyses were performed to examine variables and relationships of interest. Our sample included a cross-section of CBR community and academic practitioners (n = 308). Respondents reported a wide range of project foci, experience, operating budgets and reasons for engaging in their last CBR endeavor. Academic partners were perceived to be most involved at all stages of the research process except dissemination. Service providers were also perceived as being very involved in most stages of research. Community members were substantially less engaged. High levels of satisfaction were reported for both CBR processes and outcomes. Respondents reported a number of positive outcomes as a result of their research endeavors, including changes in both agency and government policies and programs. Our study shows that CBR practitioners are engaged in research on a wide array of Canadian health and social issues that is making a difference. Finding appropriate levels of participation for community members in CBR remains an ongoing challenge.