Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat
Policy on the Principle of Consensus
1. Policy Title
Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) policy on the principle of Consensus.
2. Effective Date
This policy is effective April 1, 2025.
3. Policy Objective
This policy provides the definition of consensus and context for achieving consensus, to be considered by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) for CSAS scientific peer review processes.
4. Policy Statement
DFO CSAS peer review process conclusions and science advice are to be reached by consensus.
For the purpose of DFO CSAS peer review processes, consensus means there is no evidence-based opposition to the meeting conclusions and science advice. In the CSAS context, evidence-based means supported by scientific data and information and without consideration of non-scientific factors, such as the potential impact(s) of future decisions.
The Policy on the Principle of Consensus is complemented by the Policy on Conflict of Interest in Science Peer Review Processes and the Policy on Science Integrity.
5. Context
In the context of CSAS scientific peer review processes, consensus refers to the collective agreement among a group of qualified experts, based on the critical evaluation of evidence, methodologies, and interpretations presented in scientific work. Consensus does not imply unanimity, but rather reflects a shared agreement (i.e., there is no evidence-based opposition) among peer review participants that the work meets established standards of scientific rigor, validity, completeness, and significance. It is achieved through an iterative process of constructive critique, discussion, and resolution of concerns. Discussion and debate are important components of the peer review process.
For CSAS processes, Terms of Reference (which include the objectives of the peer review) and draft meeting products shared prior to the peer review meeting provide the basis for the peer review discussion and determining consensus. The Chair is responsible for leading the discussion among participants and ensuring that participants base the conclusions and science advice on demonstrated evidence or facts. The Chair determines when consensus is reached during the peer review (i.e., when there is no evidence-based opposition to the proposed conclusions and science advice). The Chair may determine that consensus has been achieved, even when non-scientific objections remain, provided that all scientific evidence has been adequately considered and discussed.
The Chair and participants in the CSAS process are guided by principles in the DFO Policy on Science Integrity, which include encouraging discussions based on differing interpretations of research and scientific evidence as a legitimate and necessary part of the scientific process and, where appropriate, ensuring that these differences are made explicit and accurately represented.
6. Evidence Base
Sound science advice benefits from a process where consensus can evolve through consideration of additional evidence (e.g., data, information, or analyses) that may not have been considered in the draft meeting products. Participants at the peer review process may have additional evidence that could support or further refine the conclusions and science advice or lead to an alternate conclusion. To the extent possible, to allow sufficient time for review, additional evidence relevant to the objectives of the peer review should be shared ahead of the meeting.
The Chair has the responsibility to determine whether the additional evidence is relevant to the objectives of the peer review process, and scientific and/or factual in nature. The Chair is also responsible for ensuring the additional evidence is discussed and reviewed at the meeting. An opinion or perspective with no supporting evidence tabled during the peer review, or mere disagreement with the science advice does not constitute an evidence-based interpretation.
If the additional evidence does not contradict the proposed conclusions and science advice, this information may not need to be included in the meeting products. Where the additional evidence suggests a different conclusion, consensus should be developed by evaluating the strength, relevance, and reliability of the evidence supporting each proposed conclusion, with greater emphasis placed on evidence that is more comprehensive, directly applicable, or based on well-established methodologies.
It is also possible that after objective examination and peer review, different conclusions are equally supported by the evidence, and are therefore equally plausible (e.g., when several plausible stock assessment models yield different results). In this case, the different possible conclusions and reasons for not reaching consensus on a single conclusion should be presented in the science advice. The meeting products should describe the type and weight of evidence, the differences among the conclusions, and the associated uncertainties, that support each possible conclusion.
Similarly, it is important to document evidence-based interpretations that are discussed but not included in the science advice due to the lesser weight of the evidence, including why the interpretation did not form the basis of the consensus-based science advice.
7. Definitions
- Peer review Chair
- A designated impartial individual responsible for leading and facilitating the discussion at a CSAS peer review meeting. The Chair ensures that discussions are structured, inclusive, and focused on the objectives of the peer review meeting and achieving consensus among peer review participants.
- Peer review process participant
- An individual invited to a CSAS peer review meeting, based on their expertise, to review draft meeting products and actively contribute to the development of the science advice.
8. Application and authority
Questions on the policy may be addressed by e-mail to:
Senior Director, Open Science
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
200 Kent St.
Ottawa, ON,
Canada K1A 0E6
- Date modified: