Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Government Muzzling Scientists
IllogicalStudent writes with this excerpt from The Vancouver Sun:
"The Harper government has tightened the muzzle on federal scientists, going so far as to control when and what they can say about floods at the end of the last ice age. Natural Resources Canada scientists were told this spring they need 'pre-approval' from Minister Christian Paradis' office to speak with journalists. Their 'media lines' also need ministerial approval, say documents obtained by Postmedia News through access-to-information legislation. The documents say the 'new' rules went into force in March and reveal how they apply not only to contentious issues, including the oilsands, but benign subjects such as floods that occurred 13,000 years ago. They also give a glimpse of how Canadians are being cut off from scientists whose work is financed by taxpayers, critics say, and is often of significant public interest — be it about fish stocks, genetically modified crops or mercury pollution in the Athabasca River."
http://www.pirateparty.ca/
sound like more mass covering laws that do good but have lots of dumb / real old stuff that just fails under them.
Sound like copyright with lot's old abandonware failing under it as well.
Canadians voted for Harper and he is simply giving them what they asked for. Everybody knows scientists just take money from the government by ginning up fear and give us nothing tangible in return. It's time somebody stood up to them.
Green Party of Canada
They criticize the Chinese about freedom of the press and then do everything they can to prevent truth escaping into the wild in Canada. Unfortunately by trying to hide the truth they highlight that this is good area to look for whatever they are trying to hide. Which highlights another Conservative trait, they aren't very bright.
What I read it as is that you will never hear anything from a government scientist that doesn't support the government agenda. It means that government scientists cannot realistically be treated as unbiased sources, the same way you wouldn't trust a tobacco funded study on the effects of cigarets. Would you really trust a government funded scientist's on the possible ecological damage caused by harvesting the oil sands if the current government's agenda had that as item number one? Most people would question that relationship anyway, but this new requirement makes it all but official; if you take government grant money, you will only publish results that agree with the government's stances.
I spent much of my youth - including 2 different highschools - in Canada and it has to be one of the most government controlled propaganda using places ever - honestly you would think that they single handedly won WW2, that the bush pilot is a significant figure in world history and *everything* was invented in Canada.
The concept is that these scientists work for the Canadian people, not for the zealot of the day.
"The time for study is over, it is time for action" - John Baird, then Minister of Environment, before gutting the climate scientists budgets.
"laugh if you want to - and say you don't care"
"if you cannot see it - you think it's not there"
"It doesn't work that way"
Oh dad, we're ALL Devo.
I have never in my life been ashamed to be Canadian. Until today. Thanks Stephen, you stupid ass!
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Remember when all the scientists were in consensus w/the politicians that the Earth was flat.
We are heading into that age of society again. And of course, there will be another age of enlightenment after if history proves true.
so is this a case of pro-skub bias or dasterdly anti-skub bias?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
In Christian Paradis's Canada, science is under the inquisition? Irony and whatnot...
can they use this to by pass candian's EPA type office.
So you can fast build stuff with out needing to wait for ever for EPA type stuff.
When, years ago, the soviets did this they were, rightly, lambasted.
Any scientist who doesn't work for the government works for industry. They're even more controlled in what they can say.
No scientist should have to check with the government before talking to the media. The only duty of a scientist is to advance knowledge. To promote truth. If you trust them to do that, you should have no problem with them talking to the media. If you can't trust them to do that, then why are you giving them grants?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
What's missing for me here is the government's claimed reason for doing this. National security?
Currently hooked on AMP
but they make up for it in viciousness.
"Slower traffic keep right" - Canadian road sign or political joke?
Why don't I have the feeling there's about to be a flood of, "That's it, I'm moving to the U.S.!"
What I read it as is that you will never hear anything from a government scientist that doesn't support the government agenda
if the current government's agenda had that as item number one
*CURRENT* being the key word. "The Government" has no agenda. It is a group of people intended to lay down and enforce some common rules; not a dictator. If you can't convince your countrymen that the government is going the wrong direction, and get them to vote it a different way, maybe you are the one in the wrong.
The fundamental problem with this philosophy is that 50% of voters are dumber than average (median).
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
>>>What I read it as is that you will never hear anything from a government scientist that doesn't support the government agenda.
So it's just like the BBC, PBS, or CBC. ;-)
(ducking and running)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
They commissioned a scientist to research it, but the government didn't like the results so they didn't approve the scientist's application to publish.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It may be different in Canada, but in the US, the professors in the field of education tend to be some of the greatest contributors to the various scientific fields. They generally don't work for the government or the industry.
This is the same government that has destroyed the accuracy of the Census under the smokescreen of "privacy rights." (We all know why the Conservatives don't like accurate census data; it makes it harder to spend money based on ideology rather than on real need.)
The Canadian government has always been notoriously non-transparent; even the Liberals have muzzled a scientist in the past.
Lots of places have policies about who can talk to the press, and who can't. This seems pretty standard to me.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
So, because you happen to agree with what your current government says about one issue, you're fine with them silencing anyone who disagrees? Well, I hope you don't get what you deserve.
The reason is basically that the current government is allergic to anything that puts them "off message." It's pure politics.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
My parents are retired scientists of world-class standing, previously employed by the Canadian federal government, with extensive networks of colleagues around the world as well as here in Canada. The current government's efforts to muzzle and control what scientists say is widely viewed as completely unacceptable by the scientists themselves, but the highest levels of the departments which employ them have long been taken over by bureacrats.
I would not be concerned with bias toward government goals on the part of the scientists, though. The government's attempts to vet and spin their public communications speaks quite eloquently to the scientists' integrity... and to this government's perfidy.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
I think that there is a misconception here. The Canadian government didn't suppress the publishing of the results, rather they prevented the scientists from contacting the media. Also, in response to the statement that only government supported claims would be published, even were that true a paper has to go through various hoops in order to get published. This includes peer review to make sure that the science is legitimate. There will always be other scientists who disagree and they are welcome to publish rebuttals.
Research professors get salaries that generally come directly from federal grants. They work for the government.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
and you expect to be censored, make sure there are plenty of draft copies floating around your agency, and send one to Wikileaks for review.
That's great, so whoever is in charge at the moment gets to decide which results get published. Why, they should fund a study to see which political party's policy will be best for the economy. That way everyone in the country will know for sure which party they should vote for... as long as it happens to be the one in charge, otherwise no one will ever see the results.
How are you supposed to convince others that the people in charge are wrong when the people in charge decide what information is available? You need access to information that shows them to be wrong, something that this law appears on the face to be designed to prevent. We've always been at war with Eastasia, and here's a historian that will corroborate that statement if you don't believe me.
The Canadian government didn't suppress the publishing of the results, rather they prevented the scientists from contacting the media.
You know, that seems a reasonable position from where I'm standing. I might not like it, but I cannot fault the government for wanting to control the media spin. It's not like the reporters are actually going to report the science without a bunch of spin of their own.
Currently hooked on AMP
Of course Mr. Harper needs to do this. We all know his party has to tow the line when it comes to the age of the planet. Floods 13,000 years ago could not have happened because God hadn't created the Earth.
Er, no. The publication process hasn't been muzzled as far as I know (and I'd probably know, see my comment further down). But this does point to some interesting challenges for the current generation of scientists.
Take a guy like Dave Schindler - when he ran ELA for the feds, he published and publicised ground-breaking work on nutrient loading and acid rain (to cite a couple of examples) that resulted in improved regulation. Today he's not employed by the feds, so he can and does tackle the oil sands issue, but those scientists who are employed by the feds are the ones who are told to vet their public comments.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
It's obviously a cover-up of climate change data, ordered by lobbyists for the planet-raping carbon industry. Those other restricted topics are only there to make the climate change cover-up a bit less flagrant.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
The second agenda is to maintain the basic structure of the political environment. It is not advantageous for the democrats/republicans in the US to introduce an amendment that would bring proportional representation or otherwise disrupt their power balance. Neither side really wants reforms in tax structure, debate over currency, etc.
If the two major parties can distract the masses with issues that don't really matter they can share the power for the future.
If you can't convince your countrymen that the government is going the wrong direction, and get them to vote it a different way, maybe you are the one in the wrong.
Good luck getting most people to even vote, let alone go beyond their general apathy.
And that reasoning is laughable, the main point of freedom in a democracy is limited government first, that is the real pillar of freedom, democracy is second. Democracy without limited government is nothing more than mob justice. Your reasoning falls apart when you try to use it in a case. For example, is lynching justified? After all, everyone agrees with it!
A free government depends on limited government more than it depends on democracy .
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I always thought the average was average ... looks like I'm going to have to dust of the statistics texts.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Same shit here in the US. Bush ran a very secretive government, and pulled the "We don't have to justify it to you," card to the other two branches often. Obama promised to change that... And really hasn't. The states secrets thing is getting pulled out, few changes are being made, etc.
Politicians don't like it when their opponents have secrets, but they love it when they do.
This rule appears to apply only to scientists who directly work for a government agency as employees, though, not to professors who are funded by federal grant money, or even professors who teach at public universities.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I think John Howard in Australia might have beaten him to that title by a fair number of years. There's crackpot dictators and theocrats in all but name all over the place.
Good luck getting most people to even vote, let alone go beyond their general apathy.
And doubly good luck getting most people to spend more that 25 seconds listening to only the most facile recap of current issues before making up their minds on how they'll vote. I've long thought that the voter form should include a randomized series of questions testing knowledge of current events, political affairs, basic economics - all at a really basic level. The people who get less than half correct have their vote counted as once. The people who do better get their vote counted maybe two or three times.
Of course there is no way this will ever come to pass since it violates your second agenda above. Pretty much the last thing any political party wants is an informed, engaged electorate that can't be swayed with idiotic soundbites.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Harper, in his attempts to create a "Fox News" in Canada blasts those opposed to it using "Free Speech" arguments.
Harper is a hypocritical creep who has NO interest in the good of the people. He is interested in dumbing them down, propagandizing at them and limiting knowledge.
Propaganda is not an attempt to communicate. Rather, it regards people not as people but as little machines which can be programmed using the right strings of words and images calculated to illicit desired behavior. The moment somebody intends to manipulate, the act of communication has ended and the act of programming has begun. Freedom of speech laws were designed with the idea in mind that people fundamentally respected the humanness of their peers. They didn't have to respect one another's opinions, but the underlying assumption is that we are appealing to the soul and intelligence on a personal level and not a cynical machine-programming level. Put another way, humans must treat each other as humans and not as lab rats.
Propaganda doesn't respect fundamental humanity and therefore should not be brought under the protection of freedom of speech. Same with advertising.
-FL
In both the US and Canada most university research faculty are funded through federal research grants. These grants are competitive and administered by various research councils that are, in theory at least, apolitical. The real political influence comes in determining how much money these research councils get, not in how they distribute it.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
No, the muzzles are required to keep the tops of their floppy heads from falling off.
This isn't just Canada by any stretch - it's everywhere. And scientists are just the newest people being affected.
The problem is media. Not left-wing media, not right-wing media, but scandal happy media. From my perspective (in Canada), media have lost all desire to fill people in on what's happening, all they want is a scandal - something they can sell right now. They want to catch a politician (or a scientist) making a mistake or saying anything that a significant number of people will disagree with. And it's been getting worse for decades.
Now, sure, it makes sense that - to a certain extent - the media needs to maintain a bit of an adversarial role toward government. Media is an important check on the power of government. But that needs to be balanced by a desire to be informative rather than sensational and a desire to inform people with both sides of an issue.
How it is now, we've reached the point that, to be safe, politicians just don't say anything of any interest - and the only information we'll get will be vacuous and committee-written. Nobody wins in this situation.
To me, politicians and media share the blame on this one. Politicians need to be open, but media needs to ease off the trigger a bit so that being open isn't quite so suicidal. The best summary I've seen of this is here (David Mitchell).
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Or perhaps the suppression of data that supports a contrarian opinion or action.
The facts are, what they are. Peer review is vital. Yet trusting politicians to use information neutrally is suspect.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
...I thought they were actually muzzling the scientists. But like the feedbag type. You know, like horses.
I was thinking, DAMN, you're working them to death! They're only human, for the love of god!!!
Frankly, it would have been a much less frustrating story. And I wonder what they're going to do when they realize that the vast majority of stuff they will get will be on stuff like the peculiarities of the reproduction of a certain type of fungus, or some standard survey of fluctuations in the luminosity of a group of stars that the suits won't understand even if it's spelled out to them Dick and Jane style. They don't know what they're getting into. In fact, expect a jump in mundane research that makes no sense to the public as pissed off scientists decide to give the government what for.
Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!
...if you take government grant money, you will only publish results that agree with the government's stances.
Hang on that is NOT what the article says. The scientists in question are EMPLOYED by the government. They are not university-based faculty who also apply for grants, are employed by a university and have tenured positions. While this is certainly very disturbing and worrying it is not as far reaching as applying to everyone who gets government research grants, only to those employed directly by the government.
Of course the irony is that, since I am someone getting a research grant from the Canadian government, but not employed by them, the government policy might make you doubt that what I just wrote is true.... which is why it is a really stupid policy to muzzle scientists whether they are government employed or not. It makes it hard to believe scientists if they come up with evidence that actually supports a government policy yet everyone will still believe them if they announce evidence against a policy....and so far university scientists can still do that.
But peer review is still going on here. The only thing being squelched is press coverage. I'm sympathetic to the argument that press coverage, even if biased, is necessary and this should not be happening, but it's not like the government is covering up the results. They are just not allowing their scientists to talk to the press about it. Not the same thing, actually, although they are in the same ballpark, I agree.
Currently hooked on AMP
There was a study on cell phone use while driving. The study cam to the conclusion that talking on the cell phone while driving was dangerous. It also stated that there was no difference in the danger level if you were holding the phone or using a hands free device. The politicians where I live used this study to pass a law requiring a hands free device to be used.
How stupid are people that the politicians can believe them to be that stupid?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
No story such as this would be complete without pointing out that the Minister of Science and Technology is a creationist.
To the Conservatives, "science" means "whatever we say". No wonder they want to control what actual pesky scientists say.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Hey a Slashdot censorship article that is actually about government censorship!
There is a war going on for your mind.
The Conservative government in Canada is similar to the Republicans in the USA.
And in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert:
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Censorship is nothing but dangerous and whoever in Canada is behind censoring scientists needs a rope, a tree and some howling in the night. I hope the citizens of Canada will act up and get this nonsense stopped.
I've worked with a number of great scientists I wouldn't want to talk to media - probably none without coaching. Do you have any idea what kind of damage a 10 second soundbite can do to the objective truth? (Likely taken from several hours of video and interview footage). PR people make their money by not getting excited or passionate about their work and making a comment which can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misused - and they never ever forget that that camera is rolling and audio recording even if it's pointed somewhere else.
See poster above, apparently the Canadian gov. isn't stopping peer reviewed publication, just gov. scientists pimping their asses to the popular media. In a way, there's a certain logic to that; why should a scientist get media coverage (with enough points it can be turned into real money) on the government dime. On the other hand, there should be wider dissemination for scientific results even if the public is in general too uneducated or distracted to care.
Well then it's up to the media outlet to ensure they are getting it "right," because you can find all sorts of damaging 10 second soundbites out there, whether from industry, academia, religion, or just some freak standing on the street corner holding a poster talking about the impending doomsday.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Yup, exactly this. The Harper administration has for the past few years been increasingly exerting control on how the public service disseminates information to the public. In the past (before 2007) a bureaucrat usually only needed the approval of their direct supervisor to respond to media inquiries, unless the topic was particularly sensitive. Now it the system of Message Event Proposals created in 2007, approval frequently needs to come directly from the Prime Minister's Office, even for totally routine and innocuous communications.
I think the biggest problem is, reports on the last ice age might offend the Conservative Party's core supporters - who know that there's no such thing as 13,000 years ago, and even if there was there'd be both dinosaurs and cavemen at the same time.
They don't. There's a big difference between a scientist who is employed by a government agency and one that is employed by a university or private research institution. While university research programs often receive funding through federal grants, they also receive other sources of funding, including non-government grants. People who work for universities aren't employed by the government, aren't directly answerable to government bureaucrats, and aren't subject to rules such as these about what papers they can publish.
But peer review is still going on here.
What has peer review got to do with this? Peer review is to ensure that what does get published is valid, but this story is about what doesn't get published. Nobody peer reviews a paper that is never released.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
stated that there was no difference in the danger level if you were holding the phone or using a hands free device.
Trouble is, if you open up that can of worms you'll get studies noting there's no difference between hands free phone chatting and talking to passengers, and that kids in the car are much more dangerous than even using a chat client on a smart phone while driving and eventually you'll get the conclusion that drivers should be isolated and on uppers, while passengers should be in a separate compartment.
And that just won't be politically manageable. Which is why you get not entirely scientifically supported regulations instead, that may or may not do much good, but that perhaps make it appear that someone's doing something about something so the can of worms can be shoved under the carpet until we have computer driven cars instead.
Yeah, you better. The "average" can still be low. Let's take a 6th grade class taking a calculus exam. The class "average" would be somewhere around 10%, (if that,) which is considered "low."
I'm not sure about Canadian IQ, but right now, American IQ average is right at 98... a little lower than the "average" for all people.
-D
It is more opaque than the Nazi Party, avoids medias as much as possible, despite being a minority elected government. What are the other parties doing? Sleeping on gas I am afraid.
Tomorrow is another day...
What has peer review got to do with this?
I was responding to postbigbang.
Currently hooked on AMP
I understand all of that. Though when it is known that all distractions are created equal then the law just becomes one more government infringement doing no good, little harm and talking points for politicians.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I can't think of any instances where lynching actually helped.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I always just assumed this was about climate/oilsands politics. I seriously hope you're wrong about the christian fundamentalist angle - that would just be incredibly depressing.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
How dare you say abortion and gun control don't matter?!!!
Damn, that made me laugh.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Really.
And 'the media outlet' has what interest in getting it 'right'?
Most of our media is in the entertainment business. The majority of the rest has a political agenda, and uses their power to advance their agenda at the expense of their adversaries.
So expecting the media to get it right is truly futile.
At least the professing news outlets should make an effort to get the 'facts' right, but even that fails regularly. Anything they do is tainted by entertainment value or politics.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
>>>
professors in the field of education tend to be some of the greatest contributors to the various scientific fields
>>>
Can you please point to the big research universities that do NOT accept Federal funding? Where do you think all that grant money comes from?
Are you implying that there is no political bias in university research? Or just in the education departments of said universities?
Politics is an inherent component of human endeavor, we just aren't used to seeing such ham-fisted approaches as used by the incumbent Canadian government. The US Gov't has a lot more experience channeling research results into the harness of political imperatives WITHOUT getting caught doing same.
Regards,
Brian in CA
Okay, so then the alternative is for the government to step in and control the ways in which media outlets report on science, politics, religion, economy, technology, current affairs, sports, and history ... because somebody could get their facts wrong while pursuing entertainment value in any of those spheres.
Or should the government control reporting only in the areas of science, politics, and the economy, while leaving media outlets with uncensored control over technology, sports, and some of the rest?
Or is it just science that needs a government minister's approval to make sure there are no damaging 10 second soundbites?
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
you'll get studies noting there's no difference between hands free phone chatting and talking to passengers
Wrong. Talking to passengers is very different than talking on the phone. I can't recall the study off the top of my head, but this has been tested. A passenger is far more likely to take the driver's state into account before speaking, and is also aware of what is going on outside the car. Talking to a person on the other end of a cell phone has none of these advantages.
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
It should be pretty easy to make a spectrum and say this is more distracting than that, is more distracting than that. At least then you could say that everything on one side of the line is legal and everything on the other side is distracted driving / driving under the influence. If kids are really that distracting then yeah, you'd have to make everything less distracting legal (you're not going to get away with telling parents they can't drive with their kids) but at least things would be consistent.
BTW, talking with a passenger has been shown in studies to be much less distracting than talking on a phone because your passenger will immediately shut up if conditions change and even point out things that the driver might have otherwise missed. Interestingly, the most distracting thing they found was having a passenger talk to someone else on the phone because your brain consciously or unconsciously tries to build up a picture of what the person on the other end is saying.
Correct - and for people who have trouble understanding how university professors work for something other than industry (financial compensation) or the government (financial or political compensation), the other professors work for academic prestige. Which, of course, can be directly correlated to future money, but there ARE a few who publish solely for academic reasons.
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
...our Canadian Government Scientist Muzzling Overlords! Thanks to them I can happily enjoy my media-induced pleasure place in peace. Excuse me now while I clean the blood from my orifices.
Namaste
You're confusing two different issues here. The paper did get published in a peer reviewed journal. The government didn't interfere with that process at all. There is no evidence that the science was influenced by government agenda.
The government didn't step in until after the peer-reviewed paper was published, and only then did they refuse to let their scientists talk with the media. Even then, the media story wasn't suppressed, it went forward, based on information published in the peer-reciewed literature and interviews with co-authors who were not Canadian government employees.
The sum total of the government interference was to prevent their own scientists from talking directly to the media. Which is pretty darn stupid, without a doubt, but it's not the same as the government burying the data.
yp
This looks to me like nothing more than the very standard policy of saying "Nobody except official spokespeople can speak to the media"... to protect the government from lawsuits.
If 1 bad paper is published, and somebody loses money or a life over it, the Canadian government can be held liable.
Every government and private company uses the same policy.
"Okay, so then the alternative is for the government to step in and control the ways in which media outlets report on science, politics, religion, economy, technology, current affairs, sports, and history ... because somebody could get their facts wrong while pursuing entertainment value in any of those spheres."
Hardly. Oh, wait. I'm in the U.S. In Canada, that isn't necessarily unconstitutional.
"Or should the government control reporting only in the areas of science, politics, and the economy, while leaving media outlets with uncensored control over technology, sports, and some of the rest?"
Again, Canadians may need to counsel their governmet on how they would like it done.
"Or is it just science that needs a government minister's approval to make sure there are no damaging 10 second soundbites?"
Well, from my experience with the Frozen White North, hoof-in-mouth disease is not limited to scientists, but is known to infect much of the Crown, or whatever they have taken to calling Government up there.
From a U.S. citizen's perspective, the government has no business censoring publicly-funded science, nor even privately-funded science. But that's a U.S. perspective, and Canadians may have different ideas. I suspect not much different, but that's for them to work out. Me, I just watch with mixed glee and sadness. Canada can be different in a good way. But it costs something, and many up there seem comvinced that they will suffer if global warming is real.
Of course, they suffer anyways.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Perhaps if journalists stopped taking studies that suggest minor correlations and presenting them to the public as though they proved major causations it would be reasonable to claim censorship here. Nothing in their directive suggests even that the scientist themselves can't, for example, publish a blog where they discuss their findings, just that they shouldn't talk to journalists attempting to use government-funded science to provide a veneer of respectability to their article.
That seems fair to me. I have frequently seen articles on video games, for example, where the article reported something very different than the peer reviewed paper it was supposedly about based on un-peer reviewed comments from the scientist involved. Like, "video games encourage stimulus-seeking behavior that clearly leads to ADHD", when the study found that children with attention problems were far more likely to play video games than children without. If I could prevent my tax dollars from going to support such misinformation campaigns I gladly would.
Nah, more like National Harperism, aka mr thought control, aka mr billion-dollar-bogus-G20-summit-with-police-staged-vandalism, aka Dubya Eh?
He is a big time New World Order proponent. Nuff said.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I agree.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
They're probably trying to avoid the problems that result when some random government employee espouses their personal opinions yet get referred to as "a government scientist" by the media, thus implying that the personal opinion is somehow government sanctioned or verified.
I work at an engineering firm. We have lots of smart people and lots of opinions. But we are not supposed to go talking to the media, because we are neither trained nor skilled in conveying information to journalists. This isn't anything nefarious - it's a recognition of the fact that you can be both a brilliant technical person and utterly incompetent when it comes to communicating with the media or other non-technical audiences. You don't want the media reporting things incorrectly just because the individual interviewed doesn't communicate well.
And that doesn't even factor in how bad some of the science reporting out there is. Sometimes it's so wrong it doesn't make any sense until you read the actual journal paper. Even when it's right, often you see unproven speculation mixed in with what the reported-upon study actually showed. Especially if it fits some cultural stereotype or media narrative. There's so much pseudo-information in the major media's reporting of science, that there is good reason to have an accuracy filter in place when communicating government research results to the public.
That said, such review could also be abused for political ends. But in this case they're not limiting publication to the scientific journals, so it's not like they're keeping their research secret. It's really just being careful not to put unprepared or incompetent communicators in front of the press.
It also depends on the rule of law. a lynch mob (or any of the examples above) is not problematic because of limited government, but because the government (in theory) and citizens must follow the rule of law.
That is why people in the US get so cranky when people sidestep that rule of law and abuse the system.
The easier alternative is that when it's government research, the government should take the utmost care in presenting its results to the media, so as to minimize the chance that the media misunderstands it.
Most of the media is not intentionally trying to distort the science, but they are human with all sorts of biases and limited knowledge of science. A careful communication to the media of what the study showed and did not show is all they need to do. They don't need to regulate the media's reporting, just make sure they're giving the media hard-to-misunderstand summaries of the research.
It is easy to enforce a law banning driving while on a hand-held cellphone, but extremely difficult to enforce one for hands-free. I think there should be penalties in place for getting into an accident while on (any) cellphone, but creating an unenforceable law is bad practice.
My webcomic
I don't see anything about the Canadian government requiring prior approval before politicians in office, or those seeking office, are allowed to talk about public issues, such as Canada's history and its resources.
Without that, this represents a very blatant attempt to discriminate against scientists based solely on their behavior (which is doing things in a scientific way, rather than a political or religious way).
The whole thing is a bit of bad joke, eh?
Will
You're confusing two different issues here. The paper did get published in a peer reviewed journal. The government didn't interfere with that process at all. There is no evidence that the science was influenced by government agenda.
Except for, you know : ... which had quite a few scientists, who approved quite a few papers. I'm not saying the Canadian government is anywhere near that bad, but ...
1) paying everyone who has a say on that "peer-reviewed" thing. I mean, I'm not saying it's the same thing, but Russian scientists also only had to be "peer reviewed" by the supreme soviet
2) prevent these scientists from informing the public. This is, of course, supposedly the whole point of science, isn't it ? Making our lives better by increasing our knowledge.
Confusing 2 different issues ... right.
Thankfully I exaggerate, but that element of Canadian society definitely has it's home in the CPC - look at Stockwell Day, cabinet minister and young earth creationist.
The Conservative base, like it seems to be in many countries, is split between the social conservative religious wackos and the fiscal conservative "yay oil, boo climate" wackos. This move is brilliant (in a very cynical way) because it plays to both - but like most of Cabinet's actions these days, doesn't appeal to anyone else.
" if you take government grant money, you will only publish results that agree with the government's stances."
There's a slight difference between the actual situation and what you imply. The scientists in question aren't recipients of federal grant money. They're federal employees.
There's a definite problem here, but it's not that the government is telling it's employees they need permission to talk to the media. It's that the National Research Council (I think the article screwed up - I don't think the Natural Resources Council exists) isn't arms length enough from the government.
Grants are a different thing. The guy quoted in the article, the one is is extremely critical of this, is funded by government grants.
yep, because .25 of American scientists believe in Intelligent Design, and as such are worthless
Actually, my ears percked up at the mention of past ice age floods, especially since people have pointed to a post ice-age flood in the Black Sea as a source for the story of the Biblical Flood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
Of course any real archeaology of a Biblical event is bound to expose some falacies, like how it just flooded a small region and didn't really flood the whole world, Noah actually managed to save some domesticated animals, not every animal on the Earth, etc...
So... have looney Creationists actually gained enough hold on the Canadian government to silence scientific knowledge?
Very America-like, you all must be very proud
Wherever You Go, There You Are
The difference is far more subtle than you infer.
The public relies upon high quality, independent science (research) in government agencies to inform and direct public policy. Scientists who do science in government agencies are recruited with the assurances that they will still be able to conduct science. Science relies upon independence, peer review and publication. The fact that the scientist in question co-authored a study with 4 other authors from Canada and the UK and that the study was published in a peer reviewed journal indicates that he was/is doing independent research.
When you interfere with independence and take the "public" out of publication you undermine and cast doubt on the science. This is what has happened in Alberta with the Government monitoring chemical contaminants from tar sands development in the Athabasca basin. As as result of government interference and "vetting" of the results, the public has lost confidence in the "science".
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
Well, it is the ridiculous nature of the process and it is another example of the control freak we have as a PM. The example given in the article is a scientist who published a paper in Nature about the glacial flooding at the end of one of the ice age periods. The government did not allow him to be interviewed about the article until the deadlines had passed. The OK had to come virtually from the PM. We are not talking about anything controversial here: nothing that would be tied to present day issues. This pre-historic science and has nothing to do with contrarian views.
This will shock everyone, I know, but it is an example of the hypocrisy of the govt which came to power partly on the platform of being open. Sigh... meet the new boss same as the old boss.
The whole point was to keep the reds in check until they fell under their own weight.
That objective was ultimately achieved.
The only thing lost to the reds in the Vietnam era was American college campuses.
Those 'powerful' (in their little 'ology' worlds) commie profs will find it hard to replace themselves with new useful idiots.
I give them another 10 years.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just wait until legislation is passed that will restrict what kind of research can and cannot be done without government supervision. After all, some things are just too important to be outside of the government's control.
Love sees no species.
TFA mentions something about oil sands and mercury pollution in the Athabasca river, so it's most probably work of the oil industry.
As a bonus, they get silence about floods at the end of the ice age. Any paper about climate is bad for the oil industry, they need ignorance in order to enforce their truth that there is no climate change and if it existed it would not have been caused by CO2 in the atmosphere.
If you read again you will see that only certain scientists need permission and only with certain types of publications. I see both sides of this. On the one hand this does smell authoritarian and ham fisted which is what out prime minister is best known for. But on the other hand there have been some super left wing scientists taking tax payer money and using it for PR champagnes designed to wreck the Canadian economy based on some very specious claims. If we need to do things differently that should be a decision by the people and the government. Not a decision taken by one scientist acting like he speaks for the government based on getting a grant from them.
Another point everyone appears to be missing - this only affects those directly employed by the government. It says nothing about the vast majority of scientists working at universities that are funded by the government - indirectly. This appears to be more a case of the government not wanting scientists in their direct employ from making statements that could be interpreted as coming from the government.
It should be pretty easy to make a spectrum and say this is more distracting than that, is more distracting than that. At least then you could say that everything on one side of the line is legal and everything on the other side is distracted driving / driving under the influence. If kids are really that distracting then yeah, you'd have to make everything less distracting legal (you're not going to get away with telling parents they can't drive with their kids) but at least things would be consistent.
I see no reason that you'd have to make the less distracting things legal. This is a cost/benefit tradeoff - what's the cost of disallowing each of the distractions, compared to the benefit of disallowing them. And, since we're talking politics, it's probably the political cost that matters.
You've just noted that the political cost of disallowing driving with kids in the car is too high for it to be practical. That doesn't mean that it's not possible to prohibit driving while talking on the cell phone; that's a lower political cost (and, I assume, a lower personal cost for most drivers.)
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
I agree with the overall sentiment, but one thing that may not have been clear form the summary is that this only affects scientists who work for federal research institutes. The rules do NOT apply to university researchers receiving government grants, only researchers at institutions that are under direct control of some ministry.
Research professors get salaries that generally come directly from federal grants. They work for the government.
Actually, no, they don't. In Canada, salaries for the principal investigators (ie. grant holder(s)) are explicitly NOT eligible expenses for federal grants. Faculty salaries come from university general operating funds (GPOF), which in turn are provided by the provinces, not the feds.
You probably don't understand the current situation in Canadian politics. The Harper government got in on 35% of the popular vote, and probably less. How? Four other parties split the left of center vote: the Liberals, the NDP, the Green Party, and the Block Quebecois. Two thirds of the country did not want and did not vote for the Conservatives, and voter apathy is at an all time high.
This story hits right to the crux of the matter. The Conservatives beat the Liberals by campaigning on the issue of--wait for it--transparency! They then immediately proceeded to shut down all avenues of public information from the government except official channels, and Conservative ministers usually refuse to talk to the press at all, sending party spin doctors instead when they can no longer avoid talking to the press. Government access is now funneled entirely through Access to Information, which can take months or years (effectively making it useless to the media), and National Security is invoked on the merest wisp of an excuse. So this story is part of a longstanding practice, not just a reasonable approach to the media.
A month ago, the Conservatives triggered a shit storm by attempting to shut down the long form census, claiming that the questions were intrusive. The question they cited was, "How many beds do you have in your house?" I will explain why this seemed significant to their base in a moment (hint: they equate beds with sex.) The Conservatives claimed they could get the data by other means. This means your bank, credit cards, air miles, browsing habits, etc--all of which have your name attached to the data, are quite expensive, and all of which come with non-disclosure agreements. But the census does not associate names with data (these get separated upon receipt), and gives statistical data on the state of the nation. In other words, it serves as a report card on government policy, and is open source. The other data is spotty, not much good for statistical analysis, not available for public view, but gives the government unprecedented access to personal information. In other words, our government wants more information about us, but doesn't want us to know anything about it.
And yes, they will know how many beds we have, and will have a pretty good idea of what we do in them.
How do they get away with it? The 35% comprises two groups: mainly social conservatives (the religious right and immigrants from third world countries), and "economic conservatives"-- the Canadian equivalent to the Tea Partiers. The former I can understand, but those alone would make the Conservatives a political backwater. The latter are a mystery. The Liberals paid down the debt for fourteen years, and Paul Martin could have steered through the current economic crisis with his eyes closed. We threw away the best economic manager we've ever had on a whim. It isn't like our federal government was out of control--Americans would have killed to have a guy like Martin. The Conservatives are now taking credit for Canada's remarkably stable banking system, yet in their first throne speech, they tried to dismantle it, pressuring the banks into allowing subprime mortgages; forty and even fifty years long. Fortunately, the financial institutions imported from the U.S. to foster this insanity were not yet too big to fail, and collapsed without much of an impact. But what if Harper had gotten power in 2000? We would have conditions that mirrored Bush's America, with huge military expenses in Iraq, a housing bubble, and failing banks. And their pet project? Twenty Billion for prisons, to build an American style prison industry/lobby. Conrad Black (hardly a bleeding heart liberal) has discovered for himself the obscenity of this proposal. No one in favour of this has any right to call himself a libertarian. And so, as under the last Conservative government, we have record deficits, a failing economy, and the largest trade deficit in our history.
The majority of Canadians are socially liberal
The Conrad Black links was this.
Actually, if you listen to the comments of some DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) scientists when asked about their thoughts on the (many years) raging 'controversy' over whether or not sea lice and other contaminants have been (drastically) affecting salmon runs their answers (or lack thereof) seem to make it pretty clear that they're not allowed to even think about the answers to those questions.
A few weeks ago, the Canadian Government decided that filling out 'long form' census questions would no longer be mandatory. They declared that Stats Canada scientists had assured them that this would not affect the quality of the data collected. The head scientist of Statistics Canada had to quit his job in order to counter the lies spoken by the Prime minister and his Cabinet.
Given the kind of control that they've taken over what government scientists can say, I have little question that some political hack is going to declare that submitting a paper to a scientific journal about a contentious issue is going to fall under this new policy.
Personally, I think that this is a flagrant violation of scientists' rights to free speech, but that's a matter for the courts to decide.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
In this article, information about science research is being withheld from the media.
What if the fact that this information is being withheld, were also withheld?
Now we have a media with no information, and no idea that they don't have the information, and a public who has no clue about it either.
How would you go about convincing your countrymen that this is a bad thing, if no-one, even you, knew about it?
[...] and even if there was there'd be both dinosaurs and cavemen at the same time.
They are called DRAGONS and KNIGHTS. stop spreading such ideas: they sound so scientific.
They should make tech that lets the car (bluetooth microphone/speaker) mute the other person when the jerk* is high enough.
*derivative of acceleration.
Libertarians have voted Republicans into power across the US for decades, on promises to cut government. The fact that Republicans lied, and vastly expanded government, especially its most abusive parts, has not stopped libertarians from voting Republicans into power.
You can't take credit for being too stupid to catch on to Republican lies when you keep voting for them.
--
make install -not war
Sorry, but that's not really it. The Prime Minister is silencing them because they might talk to the media about things he doesn't want them talking about. It's part of a pattern of hamfisted control freak behaviour. I mean most of the ministers that Harper has appointed aren't allowed to talk to the media without his direct approval of what they're to talk about and when they are allowed, they're given a script to memorize before hand. Only 1 or 2 of his most favoured cronies are allowed the freedom to speak the media without heavy censorship.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Doubtful, it's part of a patten of tightly controlling information. After all if you were going to dictate what these scientists were allowed to publish, first you would have to make sure they're not allowed to talk about that to the media. Frankly the Conservative Party of Canada is a lot like the Republican party. They've become an anti-fact, anti-truth party that likes to drive wedge issues to convince dumb or apathetic voters to vote against their actual interests over some inflammatory issue of the moment. They're slowly ripping the mechanism of government apart to appease their anti-tax, anti-government supporters and trying to stomp out opposition and free thought wherever they can within the government services.
They're even trying to set up their own Canadian version of Fox News.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yup, that awereness also helps to compensate the lack of concentration that the dialogue causes, two impaired eye pairs is better than one impaired pair.
- Raynet --> .
Hey, parent is not a troll! Seriously, has anybody seen Karl Rove south of the border recently?
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
The general truth is the younger generation grows up bathed in the biases and hatreds of their parents. That's why we still have racists and blind-faithers. With few exceptions, after their adolescent 'wild years of rebellion', the vast majority settle down and become just another link in the chain, ready to pass down the familial 'traditions'.
The policy came in to being because it became clear decades ago that dealing with the media requires training because the latter are adept at spinning stories to their own ends (like the TFA). Unfortunately, whenever a government employee speaks, the govt (NOT the employee) is called to account for it so yeah, the guys in charge want to hear whats going to be said first so they don't get blind-sided. It is surprising that the policy only got enforced at Environment Canada so recently as it is (and has been) common practice in every other department you'd care to think of (likely true in _any_ govt anywhere).
As for this specific case:
a) there is a procedure that is pretty streamlined and if there was an unseemly delay it was likely because the scientist didn't get off his butt and push the paperwork through ('Oh, I'm a scientist. We shouldn't have to do administration.");
b) being a scientist, the statement he planned to release likely needed editing because it was poorly written for a media context. Just because you can write a scientific paper doesn't mean you can write; and
c) the scientists paper is available to the public. The media could have gone ahead with a comment or opinion of their own OR sought the comment of a scientist who was not employed by the govt just like all the other news agencies.
That last point is an important one. If any govt employee wants carte blanche to speak to the media, then get out of the govt. Otherwise, get with the program. Take the media relations courses the govt offers its employees (free of charge), anticipate the timelines on the various administrative protocols and thank gawd you are in a position where (unlike most of your colleagues) you get to do research without the burden of teaching, soliciting funding from industry, or worrying about "publish or perish".
"Muzzled"? Hah. The reporter and scientist were too lazy to put in the work for the science story and defaulted with an easy to write conspiracy theory. That's what's wrong with the media, and why policies for release are needed.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Am afraid that I would have to agree with you. Whatever their reasons for the various decisions being made they are being bloody quiet about them. We cannot tell what the real driver is, perhaps to push as much public money into private hands as possible or some suite of crackpot theories. But no recognizably rational arguments seem to be made and the results appear to be destroying institutions and raising costs. He did make a comment some years back that we would not recognize Canada when he was finished. That seems to be happening -- unfortunately I don't think it was most people thought they were voting for.
Has anyone asked what interesting thing actually happened 13,000 years ago then? Sounds like something surprising was discovered.
Great idea! I've seldom heard a politician admit the truth, that what we need are pragmatic problem solvers.
Also, my condolences to your friend on losing her next electoral contest.
The people won't countenance a politician refusing to tell them sweet, sweet lies.
I do have one idea, though I'm not sure how it would fit into Canadian politics, but for the U.S. I'd like to see personal representation in the lower house, so that every citizen can choose their own congressional representative, who will vote for their constituents the same way shares are voted at a stockholder's meeting. That way every citizen can have a representative who is accountable to them and no one else.
Unfortunately, there's no way the career politicians will ever let that happen . . . peacefully.