Canadian Government Muzzling Scientists

Meshach writes "Scientists in Canada researching why salmon stocks are depleting face being muzzled by the Canadian Conservative government. Quoting: 'Science told Miller to "please feel free to speak with journalists." It advised reporters to contact Diane Lake, a media officer with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Vancouver, "to set up interviews with Dr. Miller." The documents show major media outlets were soon lining up to speak with Miller, but the Privy Council Office said no to the interviews. The Privy Council Office also nixed a Fisheries Department news release about Miller's study, saying the release "was not very good, focused on salmon dying and not on the new science aspect," according to documents obtained by Postmedia News under the Access to Information Act. Miller is still not allowed to speak publicly about her discovery, and the Privy Council Office and Fisheries Department defend the way she has been silenced.'"

Comments

Imagine

[Anarchduke]

A scientist telling an uncomfortable truth being silenced by conservatives. It's preposterous.

Re:Imagine

[atari2600a]

We must destroy ourselves so that we may not venture to the stars!

Re:Imagine

[syousef]

A scientist telling an uncomfortable truth being silenced by conservatives. It's preposterous.

Go on then. Let her tell aboot the feesh. Thankyou kindly.

Re:Imagine

[myurr]

You needn't be so specific in targeting the conservatives - it's true of all politicians from all sides across the whole world. If a report or scientific study doesn't give the result they want, then they reframe the question and try to bury or hide the original. The EU even do it with national referendums (e.g. the Irish vote to ratify the Lisbon treaty that had to be held a second time as they didn't get the result they wanted).

Re:Imagine

[Chrisq]

A scientist telling an uncomfortable truth being silenced by conservatives. It's preposterous.

This would never happen in Ame .... oh wait!

Re:Imagine

[MacTO]

True. On the otherhand, I don't recall the actual muzzling of scientist by centrist (right or left wing) governments. Yet North Americans have enjoyed at least two such leaders over the past decade.

Re:Imagine

[canajin56]

The Liberals did the exact same thing. You can't close the fisheries or else that will cost jobs and that will cost you in the next election. But what you can do is take the numbers the scientists give you, double them, and then brag about how under your stewardship things are getting better all of the time. All you have to do is make sure the scientists aren't allowed to talk to the media directly.

Re:Imagine

[ocularsinister]

You needn't be so specific in targeting the conservatives... ...The EU even do it with national referendums

The EU Parliament has had a right wing majority since 1999 and right wing president since 2004, so in this context the second Irish election was imposed by conservatives. You could argue that European Conservatives are somewhat to the left of US Democrats, I suppose...

In any case, I'm not sure I would equate a referendum with a scientific study.

Re:Imagine

[Ironhandx]

Realy?

I say this with incredulity because the Liberals did exactly that.

The only real difference is that the liberals shut down local fisheries and then sold the quotas equal to the fisheries they had just shut down to foreign nationals. So we still have over fishing going on, its just not helping canadians at all. All of it was very hush hush and no one knew about any of the fishing quotas that had been sold until Portuguese boats started getting spotted in Newfoundland waters.

Re:Imagine

[sayfawa]

I hear that a lot, and maybe it's true in other countries. But in Canada, yes, you do need to be specific in targeting the Conservatives.

This Conservative government is an anti-fact government. They don't like evidence getting in the way of their agenda. From this, to the abolishment of the long-form census, to firing scientists who speak out, to going ahead with their "tough-on-crime, lock-'em-all-up" strategy in the face of evidence around the world that it doesn't work. The other parties are not like this. True, the other parties sometimes have other faults, but this abhorrence of data, facts and objectivity in general is a Conservative thing.

Re:Imagine

[Richard_at_work]

Take a look at how different the two versions of the ratification that the Irish voted on were, its quite interesting...

Basically, they didn't just vote on the same thing twice - it was rejected, they heavily amended it and asked if the amendment was acceptable and it was.

Re:Imagine

[pnewhook]

They don't like evidence getting in the way of their agenda. From this, to the abolishment of the long-form census...

They did not abolish the long form census, they only made it voluntary instead of mandatory. From a freedom point of view this is exactly the right thing to do.. Do you really want your government asking you very personal questions, then having the ability to fine and jail you if you don't want to answer? Thankfully they fixed that piece of nonsense.

Re:Imagine

[Midnight Thunder]

At the same time what are statistics worth if they are voluntary? I thought the whole point of the census was to have decent statistics to help confirm choices made and help future decisions?

Re:Imagine

[Midnight Thunder]

I sometimes wonder if Harper based his governance methods on those of George Bush and his cronies?

Re:Imagine

[Hatta]

You needn't be so specific in targeting the conservatives - it's true of all politicians from all sides across the whole world. If a report or scientific study doesn't give the result they want, then they reframe the question and try to bury or hide the original.

Yes, whenever a politician encounters a scientific fact that conflicts with their ideas he will try to cover it up. The difference is that conservatives are much more likely to have ideas that conflict with scientific facts.

Re:Imagine

[Toze]

I know this will be shocking, but guess what Conservative supporters say about the Liberal party and its policies and supporters? Pull your head out of your bias, dude. "Blah blah oh the problems are really THIS party's fault" means that you're on the other team. Problems in democracies are systemic, not partisan.

Re:Imagine

[CecilPL]

When it was mandatory it was a credible statistical survey that can be used to examine trends and analyze policy decisions.

Now it's the equivalent of an internet poll.

Re:Imagine

[tixxit]

You are exactly right. So, why would Harper not want to base his decisions on factual information... Hrmm...

Re:Imagine

[sumdumass]

what if there is something to discredit them?

BTW, you can only discredit the science if there is a problem with the science. You can discredit the person presenting the science which will only cause it to be reviewed and presented by someone else, but the science can only be discredited by the science itself.

Re:Imagine

[scamper_22]

Let's see what I'd prefer.

A government that threatens people will jail times and fines for not filling in how many hours of unpaid house work they do....

or one that doesn't let government scientists speak to the media.

Yeah... I'll go with the one that doesn't threaten me with jails and fines for a silly census.

Scientists are not independent people. They are not objective saints like a truth council. They're just as political as anyone else. I can't run my mouth about any issues in my company. They aren't allowed to turn their mouth.

And if you think scientists are a truth council, well that is your problem not understanding humanity.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Science has only been allowed to flourish because it has been free from power and politics.

Re:Imagine

[cowboy76Spain]

Oh please, don't be so negative.

Probably when there is no more salmon left and no more money can be made of fishing salmon, they will let her speak freely!

It is just a matter of let time go by...

Re:Imagine

[tqk]

You can't just sit in a corner come election time and say "they're all the same," because they aren't.

I used to think that too, before I became hopelessly disillusioned with politics as it's now practiced. However, yes, they are all the same. The only difference between them is the colour of the hobby-horse they're riding. There's not a lick of "civic duty" left in any of them. Their "job" these days is to generate campaign funding for the next election, and nowadays, that means doing the bidding of corporate interests.

Sorry, but they've irrevocably lost me.

Re:Imagine

[I.S.Bear]

I bet you created the internet too :)

Re:Imagine

[interkin3tic]

You needn't be so specific in targeting the conservatives - it's true of all politicians from all sides across the whole world

Can you name a scientific finding that liberal politicians have suppressed? Not to say liberal politicians are above that, it just seems to me that they're generally too busy suppressing sex or money scandals, or waiving the white flag to conservative business interests to suppress science.

Re:Imagine

[DarthVain]

To be fair all political parties are like that to a certain extent, in that they don't like bad stuff to come out that is at odds with their political ideals...

Its just that the Conservatives are particularly bad... This is probably a result of so many of their ideals, being at odds with science...

or what I would describe as wrong. However if you think the Liberals wouldn't do the exact same thing on an issue, or change their ideal in light of science, you are on crack. They would spin it, and bury it as fast as they can just like the Conservatives. As I said, they just have to do it more because their dogma doesn't quite match reality as much.

Re:Imagine

[joggle]

What the heck are you talking about? A prominent scientist wrote a significant paper, published in the most widely respected science journal in the world and was not allowed to talk about it to the media. You don't see a problem with this because scientists aren't 'truth councils' and/or she shouldn't 'run her mouth off' about her own work? I was under the impression that government employees work for the public, not for the current ruling party. Am I wrong? Other than politicians, are only 'truth councils' allowed to talk freely to the press?

Re:Imagine

[Cederic]

Realy?

I say this with incredulity because the Liberals did exactly that.

Realy? I ask only because canajin56 did state up front,

The Liberals did the exact same thing.

Re:Imagine

[anyGould]

This Conservative government is an anti-fact government.

If I needed to be more specific, I'd say that the current Conservative government is trying very hard to become a franchisee for the Republicans.

It's moving a little slower up here, but all the fingerprints are there - blocking work to make a point, the compulsion to argue that everyone without an opinion Obviously Believes The Same As I Do, and people who oppose are Subversives (of whatever stripe we're painting this week), and the complete obliviousness to anything that might indicate they may be incorrect in the slightest.

My favorite Harper quote so far: "Conservative values are Canadian values and that the Conservative party is Canada's party". Translation: if you don't believe as we do, you're not Really Canadian. (Keep in mind they only got around 40% of the vote - hardly a massive endorsement.)

Re:Imagine

[anyGould]

They did not abolish the long form census, they only made it voluntary instead of mandatory.

This sounds good in theory (Freedom good, Privacy good). In practice, I've never heard of a case where someone's personal information leaked from StatsCan. In practice, in order for those statistics to be useful, you need an unbiased random sample. Making it voluntary means it's self-selected, which ruins the results.

And in practice, the long-form census is easily the least intrusive thing the federal government does to us, and it's done with a clearly stated and obvious benefit (I've filled out a long-form - it's really not that bad, and again - StatsCan has built a reputation for not screwing around with this.)

So, while in theory it's good to do this, in practice we just screwed up one of the things our government actually did well.

Re:Imagine

[anyGould]

Problems in democracies are systemic, not partisan.

Only if you can find instances on multiple sides. Corruption? Yep, Libs and Cons have both screwed that pooch multiple times. Playing one region of the country against the other? Yep, all of them are guilty (even the NDP some days, who I find have the most integrity simply because until recently they didn't have the option of choosing "sell out for political power"). The party system where you're punished for not toeing the line? Yep, everyone gets slapped by that one as well.

But the Cons have to wear prorogation as a blunt instrument of policy. They have to wear their unwillingness to run a minority government. And they have to wear the blatant consolidation of power in the PMO office.

Re:Imagine

[Toze]

Uh, you may be forgetting Trudeau's imposition of martial law and warrantless arrests. Look, I'm not saying the Cons are good, I'm saying that all the parties are equally bad and that the system is allowing and even encouraging abuses of power. Pointing to any one party and saying "yes but they're doing the worst things" inevitably infers the other parties are somehow less bad, when experience seems to show us that the only real difference is who's fucked us most recently.

Re:Imagine

[broken_chaos]

It's a sneaky way of cutting social programs without actually doing such. If you don't have accurate demographic information, you can't properly predict population changes and the shifts in funding for social programs that come with it.

Re:Imagine

[lansirill]

I'm not familiar with the design of the replacement for the Canadian long-form Census so I'm not going to address that in particular. I do want to address your assertion that a voluntary survey is the same as a self selected survey. In a self-selected survey any member of your universe may choose to become a respondent and you typically will not have any non-response followup (the people that come and bug you if you don't answer the survey.) Now a voluntary survey simply means that you are not required, by law, to answer. So you can have self selected voluntary surveys, non-self selected voluntary surveys, and non-self selected involuntary surveys. I don't believe that the concept of a self-selected involuntary survey really makes any sense, so a it's probably safe to say that a self selected survey must be voluntary but the converse does not hold.

In both voluntary and involuntary surveys you will experience non-response. This is a problem since you now have a portion of your universe which you are unable to measure. There are various ways to adjust estimates to try and reduce the non-response bias, but the best is to go back out and try to convince people to respond. I don't know about Canada, but the only difference the legal requirement has in this process in the US is that if response is required by law, we add a line along the lines of 'Your response is mandated by law.' There are fines and jail time that go along with them, but to the best of my knowledge they're never used. In fact, at least for business surveys, the fine never even is mentioned since many businesses would rather simply pay the fine than spend the time to respond. Really, the only way you'll have an additional problem with a voluntary survey is if the people who only respond because we say they must are different from the people that will not respond regardless.

I'm a little surprised that they made it voluntary, but that alone isn't sufficient to destroy the quality of the survey. If nothing else, I'm curious to find out what exactly they did. Fortunately I've got this wonderful Internet thing to help.

Re:Imagine

[sayfawa]

So, can you tell me about some similar infractions the Libs are guilty of? Have they ever suppressed the release of scientific and sociological data, or stopped it from being collected in the first place? I'd like to hear about it. Not being sarcastic.

Re:Imagine

[sayfawa]

Sure, all the parties lie and hide things that they have done. But can you name instances where the other parties are suppressing things that independent 3rd parties, like scientists, have done?

Re:Imagine

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Sure, all the parties lie and hide things that they have done. But can you name instances where the other parties are suppressing things that independent 3rd parties, like scientists, have done?

Well first let me point out what has already been said elsewhere - the government isn't suppressing the scientists work - it has been published in reputable journals. The government does want control over what PR activities its employees engage in - seems perfectly normal to me, in no way suppresses the scientific findings from being reported and media control is something engaged in by all governments.

Second, you ask for examples of other parties suppressing the work of 3rd parties - but
a) the work isn't being supressed, but even if it was...
b) these aren't third parties they are employees of the government; a third party would be a university scientist, a news person being censored etc.
c) all governments suppress information, reports about their own workings that are generated by their own employees
d) You admit to the dishonesty of the other parties - who cares what the particular form is? If they are dishonest then they are dishonest; IMHO saying that one type is worse than the other is just making convenient definitions to push a political agenda.

Re:Imagine

[scamper_22]

Let him leave his government job and he is free to talk about whatever he wants.

Do you think a police officer or teacher or RCMP agent can just talk to the public without some screening via a public relations person?

When you work for an organization, you go through the processes. If you want to think of it this way.

The Canadian public elected the government. The government is his boss. That's how representative democracy works.

Representative democracy has lots of problems, but that's how it works.

Imagine the thousands of government workers willy nilly ranting about all their opinions and ideologies. That's now how it works. We elect the government to represent us. The public service does is in fact serve the government.

The idea of an independent public service is attractive to some. Those who think people in the public sector are free from issues of power and greed and should be trusted as truth councils. You'll typically find progressives in this camp. I don't mean progressives as in general leftist that it has come to mean. The progressive ideology that believes in expert panels determining society.

That's not my view.

Re:Imagine

[thePuck77]

The problem with that is that people don't follow up on the science. Instead they dismiss it because of the scandal, plus those who oppose the science (either on ideological/religious grounds or political/capitalistic grounds) gain a weapon. The fact of the matter is that people believe what they hear 1) first, 2) loudest, and 3) already believed. This is one reason why I feel that our media and its attendant journalists in all mediums must be reformed. The media uses sensationalism to sell their papers and ads, which in turn skews the content of their news. Hence, while there is plenty of good science and evidence supporting the theory of human-influenced climate change, the scandal (rather conveniently for some parties) distracts from that evidence and inspires doubt and disbelief that actual science does not justify.

Re:Imagine

[sumdumass]

Well, that's not very scientific is it?

So have you reviewed all the science with Global Warming and determined it to be sound? If not, how do you know that your strong support for it isn't influenced by the agendas (or whatever might discredit who was releasing the science) that might have discredited the people releasing the information in the first place?

I would hope the answer here is that it's actually someone who is not agenda oriented reviewed the science and the science supports the concept. But on the counter argument, the same is true when critics are summarily dismissed because they are statisticians and not climate scientists or there is some connection to big oil or whatever. Either their statements are supported by the evidence/science or they are not. I also would suggest not putting too strong of an emphasis on evidence alone, the science behind it is what is important. The sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening was enough evidence to support the claim that the sun revolved around the earth for the longest of times. So taking everything into consideration and weighting it with the science involved in it and other things is more important then X happened then Y happened, so so X causes Y.

Re:Imagine

[pnewhook]

The short form census (which is actually quite long) is still mandatory by all households and that is what is used to gauge the needs of the country for different programs. Nothing has changed there. The only thing that has changed is the mandatory nature of the long form which was a random smaller distribution anyway.

All the complaints against the removal of the long form census, like yours and the comments you received below are all baseless once you look at what has actually changed.

Re:Imagine

[pnewhook]

Accurate demographic information came from the mandatory short form census which all households still have to complete. Only the long form census which was smaller distribution and random was made not mandatory.

Re:Imagine

[pnewhook]

Short form is still mandatory

Re:Imagine

[pnewhook]

Did you fill out the long form or the short form? The short form is still mandatory and gives a lot of information to the government for social programs. I see no difference in the quality of information by making the long form mandatory when the short form (which is quite long) is still there and still mandatory. This is a non-issue.

Re:Imagine

[anyGould]

This year we got the short form, but my family has done the long-form in years past. (It's pretty damned easy to tell the difference - it goes on for freakin' ever). It goes into a lot more detail. (The short form this year didn't go far beyond basic demographic details.)

Re:Imagine

[Toze]

Oh, I'm not aware of Liberals playing with climate data- as I said elsewhere, it's about who's screwed us most recently and what the flavour is. The Liberals had Adscam, hints of ties to the mafia, corruption of the RCMP. The Conservatives had really stupid suppression of data, etc. My point was that loudly complaining that one government's failures and crises was overwhelmingly worse than another's simply exposes one's own biases on political issues. More concerned about environmental issues? You won't like the Cons. More concerned about fiscal issues? You won't like the Libs. More concerned about regional issues? Who you don't like depends on where you live.

The Cons and their supporters, in fact, say that "you do need to be specific in targeting the Liberals. They're anti-democracy, they don't like evidence getting in the way of their agenda. From political cronyism to outright subversion of state organs, to inappropriate use of the RCMP, to misdirecting federal funds. The other parties are not like this. True, the other parties sometimes have other faults, but this abhorrence of fiscal responsibility, accountability, and honesty in general is a Liberal thing."

See my point? All it does when you say "oh but these guys are so much worse" is expose which issues you care more about.

Re:Imagine

[joggle]

What about college professors at public universities that receive much of their funding from the government? Would they also need official approval before saying anything to reporters about their research? What about to other scientists?

Imagine 10s of thousands of reporters calling thousands of government workers for their willy nilly ranting about their opinions and ideologies. Doesn't make much sense does it? Reporters were interested in reaching this particular government worker for a good reason, she had just had a major paper published in a very important journal that could mean a lot to the public's interest.

Similarly, reporters will call firemen to report on a fire or policemen when reporting on a crime or politicians when reporting on what they are doing. When they want to report on science, why for that one category would they suddenly need to first get government approval first just to conduct the interview? Sounds like something China would do, not a 1st class democracy.

Re:Imagine

[Tiger]

They haven't gone far enough! I'm looking forward to when my government stops asking me very personal and intrusive questions about who I work for and how much money I earn. From a freedom point of view this is exactly the right thing to do, too.

</kook>

The abolition of the long form census (and it was abolished-- the National Household Survey takes it place, but is no substitute) is wonderfully meta. It robs us of a valuable tool for sound, evidence-based decision making, and it was done by a government hell-bent on avoiding making a sound, evidence-based decision when world+dog showed them how awful an idea it was.

Re:Conartist Party Lies

[Seidoger]

Wow, this early on.

Same in Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia's CSIRO is subject to exactly the same tactics, especially under the previous Liberal/National government. Maybe all the research organizations need to get together and figure out countermeasures?

Re:Same in Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

2009 under Labor 2006 under Liberal. The Australian Research Council has also been used to apply pressure, through the government reducing ARC independence so the government can influence which areas of investigation receive funding.

Re:Same in Australia

[Xest]

Countermeasures such as "Go fuck yourselves" and release it anyway?

Leak it via Wikileaks or whatever if you want plausible deniability to avoid losing your job assuming you're in a country with sane employment laws where your employer has to have good cause to get rid of you.

Re:Same in Australia

[WorBlux]

What government funds it will eventually control. Politicians are vile, and will not just hand out favors to people who might make them look bad.

Re:Same in Australia

[ColdWetDog]

You realize that the article in question was published in one of the more visible science journals? All the idiots in the Canadian government did was muzzle attempts at having they lay press talk about the research. That is to be condemned and will turn out to be futile, but you don't need Wikileaks, just a subscription to Science.

Science (the magazine) while not quite as politically involved as Nature (the magazine, not the mother) is still pretty activist. It will be interesting to see if they get wind of it and make it a Streisand Effect issue.

Re:Same in Australia

[Xest]

I wasn't aware of the specifics of this case but was primarily responding to the GP who was suggesting there was maybe something scientists could do to stand up against government muzzling of science in general which he claims is occuring in Australia too- I was merely pointing out that of course there is, and I think it's pretty straightforward!

I agree that stifling discussion of an issue is a further problem that needs to be dealt with.

Re:Conartist Party Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't go so far as to godwin it, but it IS amazing what Harper will do given a majority government for the first time.

It's times like this I wish Canada had a strict no-third-term rule like the US has. Harper would have been gone long ago and he'd have little choice but to stop meddling with the system to keep his seat.

Re:Conartist Party Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of comparisons to Hitler, why not to Stalin? This looks like a very politburo-style tactic.

Same Everywhere

[jimmydevice]

They use their power to influnce those not in the know and give the powerful even more control.
Those penned fish breed disease and kill the native population.
Get use to stunted, zombie salmon that taste like cardboard.
Because, Thats all you will be able to afford, once the native stocks are killed off.

Paging Detective Thorn

[EvilAlphonso]

The Year: 2022. The Place: New York City. The Population: 40,000,000

Harper: 1

[andreyvul]

Home and native land: 0

Only 4 more years

[future assassin]

of Harperizim. By then 1/3 of us will be in private jails for breaking copyright laws or smoking a joint.

Re:Only 4 more years

[Sulphur]

of Harperizim. By then 1/3 of us will be in private jails for breaking copyright laws or smoking a joint.

BTW is Maui Wowee copyrighted? Do they still plant a fish under a cannabis plant.

Re:Only 4 more years

[Syberz]

Only 4 more years? That's what we said last time he was elected, and what did we do?

We gave him a majority government this time... wtf?

Re:Only 4 more years

[JonySuede]

BC Bud or Quebec Gold or GTFO :P

Re:Only 4 more years

[j-cloth]

What makes you think he'll be gone in 4 years? There is zero opposition to him right now and what there was is currently battling cancer. Harper, whatever you think of his politics, is the best political strategist this country has seen. He will be in power as long as he wants to be in power (or until the party turns on him).

Re:Only 4 more years

[tixxit]

My local liberal MP candidate (Dan McTeague) was one of the most vocal supporters of harsher sentences for copyright infringement. And, yes, that is exactly why he lost my vote.

Welcome, O Canada, to the Fraternity

[macraig]

We here in the United States will try to teach you how to give the Fraternity the finger. For now... until we've marshaled the strength to put a stake through its dogmatic heart.

Let the fishermen be the judge

[Anonymous Coward]

I have done stream survey on the west coast of British Columbia. I am a fly fisher, and have an intimate knowledge of what is really going on. The truth is that a combination of factors are ruining what was once one of the greatest fisheries on earth. It comes as no surprise that the Tories would try to put a muzzle on anyone trying to ring the alarm bells.

Intensive ongoing stewardship of the resource is the only possible solution. Yes it is extremely expensive and needs the complete cooperation of all. As things stand we can study the problems till there is no longer a fish problem to study. This is what our federal government would do as it keeps their cronies in work and makes for really good press. The federally funded studies are all centered around how to exploit the the fishing resource more efficiently, not how to preserve it. Every single paper that I have read is centered around a hands off approach to stream management...Let nature heal itself, is the doctrine.

The truth is that the damage has been done and the only approach that can possibly make a difference over the long term is, the clearing of blocked streams, the enhancement of riparian areas, the improvement and restoration of estuary land that is being gobbled up by our greed for real estate. And first and foremost let the truth about what has occurred be made public.The conservative government of Canada is a short sighted bunch of politicos that could not see the forest for the trees. What is needed is a conservation industry that pays our children back by returning what we and our parents have stolen from them with our short sighted greed!

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Nursie]

Amateur fishermen or commercial fisheries?

'cos the commercial fisheries are fishing the oceans out at the moment, but if you try and actually get them to do anything about it they bleat about traditional industry and having to make a living. Most of them don't seem to understand that the rate they're going they won't be a fishing industry in a few years either way.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[catchblue22]

The truth is that the damage has been done and the only approach that can possibly make a difference over the long term is, the clearing of blocked streams, the enhancement of riparian areas, the improvement and restoration of estuary land that is being gobbled up by our greed for real estate.

Her research, as far as I have heard seems to indicate a virus propagating in the salmon population. It doesn't seem unlikely that such a virus could be coming from the salmon farms that the wild salmon often have to pass on their way to spawn. Combine that with the very likely fact that salmon farms are a source of sea lice that have been shown to infect wild salmon fry as they pass by, and you have a good argument that salmon farming is a primary cause of the decline in wild stocks of salmon.

The conservative government seems to not understand an important fact about science and the pursuit of truth, simply that money and the truth are often enemies of each other. If you view the world through dollar signs, you will have a very warped worldview.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Anonymous Coward]

Her research, as far as I have heard seems to indicate a virus propagating in the salmon population. It doesn't seem unlikely that such a virus could be coming from the salmon farms that the wild salmon often have to pass on their way to spawn. Combine that with the very likely fact that salmon farms are a source of sea lice that have been shown to infect wild salmon fry as they pass by, and you have a good argument that salmon farming is a primary cause of the decline in wild stocks of salmon.

I have caught wild Sockeye and they do not suffer from sea lice the way local fish do. And yes the sea lice problem has increased...but so has the effluent from things other than fish farms.

And yes I agree a productive natural fishery could easily again make chemically stupid fish farming financially ineffective if managed with common sense.

Deploy the submarines we bought from the British out in the open Pacific and sink the Asian drift net factory ships first...If they ever get the subs out of dry dock...But then again a whole industry has sprung up just fixing those boats so if they ever did go into useful service then their would be more unemployment.

I agree that sea lice and farmed fish are a part of the equation...there have been enough government and industry studies paid for by out tax dollars and the fish farm industry to prove that farmed salmon are not the cause to prove that there is more here than meets the eye. Same thing with the paid studies that prove that shitting in the ocean here in Victoria is not a problem. Like the good old lab rats...show me one that does not get cancer from exposure to just about anything. Pay enough money and government funded studies can prove just about anything, especially here in Canada.

My point was that the real damage to the fisheries is from many causes and will not be fixed by something as simple as eliminating salmon farming! Did you know that the Adams run last year was a record? Yet two years before that it was a bust. When the railways put a second track down the Fraser canyon in the early 1900's the canyon had a slide that blocked the fish migration for over one year at hells gate. The Adams is just starting to recover now. Some rivers like the Quesnel have never recovered.

Where the fish come from is just as important as where the go to mature and Sockeye spend very little time in close in coastal waters unless the spawning water in the rivers is too hot. Resident Georgia Straight Coho, Chinook, Cutthroat are much more likely to suffer really severe from the effects of sea lice. And as it turns out they are the fish that are most endangered. Also the fish that spawn in the lower river like Chum are suffering because of the loss of estuarine habitat...like the problems that plague Vancouver Island estuaries...the rivers Cowichan, Nanaimo, Puntlage, Stamp/Somas and the list goes on and on. This does not even take into consideration the myriad of hundreds of once pristine and productive creeks that produce smaller local fish in huge numbers. The answer is not in more useless studies it is in hard work and common sense. And above all stopping the wholesale rape of the seas.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[symes]

It is not a blame game, it is a survival game that we must all buy into or ultimately, as a species, perish.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Nursie]

"I'm sorry to say this but you're ignorant."

I'm ignorant because I think forcibly slowing down fishing now is better than being forced to slow down later because the tasty species are dead?

Seriously?

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[daid303]

I'm sorry to say this but you're ignorant. How the hell do you expect to feed 7*10^9 people?

Funny, but this problem will solve itself. It might get messy, but it will solve itself. The question just remains, how much damage do we want to do to the world before the problem solves itself?

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[daem0n1x]

I'm sorry to say this but you're ignorant. How the hell do you expect to feed 7*10^9 people?

I'm not sure, but a dead ocean certainly won't do the job.

By the way, you're an ignorant twat.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[tbannist]

The people in charge don't care about the fishing industry in the long run. MBAs are taught that long term thinking is thinking about next quarter's results. Frankly, the people who own the fishing companies will sell them when their profits start to fall. The executives running the fishing industry will find jobs elsewhere, where they can maximize short-term profits. This is the problem with capitalism, so many externalities. The fluidity of capital allows the capitalist to ruin the industry he is exploiting and then cut and run to a different industry.

This is the true nature of unrestricted capitalism. Capitalism, by design, uses resources up as quickly as possible. That's why government regulation is required, because capitalists will destroy the common good in the pursuit of the personal profit. The problem, of course, is that if the capitalists have all the money, they will rule the government too.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[xkuehn]

The fact is that there are so many mouths to feed. I wish I could bring you over here so you can see for yourself. I'd show you, for example, the school where they built playground equipment and promptly had to forbid it to the children -- because their bones snap like twigs from malnourishment. Food is traded on a world-wide market, not just in your First World utopia.

It's wishful thinking to save the environment with restrictions because people will just find a different resource, even if it's catching the same fish illegally or a mile outside your waters. All our resources are under pressure, so you'd just move the problem around a little and pretend you've "solved" it. (Which must be why politicians love this. Saves them from cutting down on their own lifestyles or imposing one-child policy.)

You can't blame people for wanting to eat, and you can't blame companies for supplying that food because those are also people who want to eat. It's all fine and well to talk about the future, but a hungry man doesn't give a damn if it's the last fish or if it's forbidden. Not if it's the only one he can afford.

It's not a personal attack, but yes, you are living a sheltered and ignorant life. Legal restrictions on fishing will not do anything significant unless you also, and more importantly, address the underlying reasons for overfishing. And it's outright cruel to simply dismiss people who say they must make a living. They're telling the truth.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[nine932038]

I don't understand your reply.

Are you asserting the need of underprivileged nations to more reliable sources of food? Or are you asserting the rights of individuals to work in their chosen fields?

While both of these are social problems that demand social answers, I think you will agree that they are very different conversations.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[fredrated]

So your *solution* is to eat the seed stock until there is nothing left, followed by mass starvation? Great plan!

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[serviscope_minor]

It's not a personal attack, but yes, you are living a sheltered and ignorant life.

No, I would argue that you are:

And it's outright cruel to simply dismiss people who say they must make a living. They're telling the truth.

That simply doesn't matter. Nature does not care about these people. If nothing is done, the fish stocks will crash soon and then they will not be able to make a living, regardless of political will, bad press and muzzling scientists.

You talk about human, economic and political things, and use this to reason that the GP is "sheltered and ignorant". The fact is that nature does not care and the science is right. That is inescapable.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[xkuehn]

No. I'm telling you that people will eat the seed stock whether you like it or not. The underlying issues must be addressed.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[xkuehn]

Okay, let me rephrase.

The rich (that's you and me, and everyone reading this) take all the resources and the poor (that's most of the world) get scraps.

The rich notice that the resources aren't going to last, so they point at the scraps and say "You can't have that, or there won't be any left tomorrow." The poor don't care about tomorrow because they're hungry now and, furthermore, because tomorrow the rich will just do the same thing again. So they poach/steal or they find something that's not protected and exhaust that instead. This is how conservation usually works: it just shifts the extinctions around. You'll have a nice graph of, say, the whales recovering and wonder where, say, the sardines went. Remember that whoever supplies a need indirectly represents those with the need. The commercial fishing industry is merely the agent representing hunger.

If you don't address the underlying problem, establishing lists of endangered species and marine reserves and all that stuff helps squat. You can't stop desperate people. We speak of food, but this applies to all resources. I also don't want to restrict myself purely to the currently underprivileged. If you significantly restricted fishing, Japan would starve. They know this and you shouldn't think for a moment they'd play along.

I do not assert a right of anyone to work in any profession they choose. However, it's not nice to suddenly find yourself out of a job. People don't want to join the ranks of the poor and starving and we should be sensitive to that.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[xkuehn]

You are right. But telling people not to eat the fish won't work. They won't listen to you.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[xkuehn]

I wouldn't go so far as to say perish. Nevertheless, saying that we must restrict fishing won't help unless the underlying reasons for overfishing are addressed.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[theycallmeB]

Conservative politicians, at least of the US and Canadian varieties, fully understand that money and truth are often enemies. They are also very unequivocal about which of the two they will side with.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[xkuehn]

It is sheltered and ignorant to live your life removed from the reality of suffering and then think everyone else will just eat less because you tell them to.

I know the science says that we're overfishing. But hungry people want to eat. Pray tell, how will you convince them not to?

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[serviscope_minor]

Pray tell, how will you convince them not to?

That's begging the question.

You said that it was cruel to tell them to stop fishing. I said nature doesn't care.

It's easy to convince them. Let them carry on, then ta da! no food!

But, Canadian overfishing is not solving the world's food problem. Local corruption and dumping from the US and EU destroying local farming is part of the problem.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Nursie]

1. None of this changes the point - that if fishing is not curtailed there will shortly be no fish.

2. My original comment was aimed at places like Scotland.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[cowboy76Spain]

After the question of who is an ignorant has been pretty much voted in the previous responses to your posts, here comes my 0.02€.

It looks like you do not understand that fishing is a completely different way of getting food than, say, agriculture.

In agriculture, you use a resource (terrain, sun, water, fertilizers) to directly produce a result. With (maybe) the exception of fertilizers, all of the other resources are guaranteed to be the same year after year (with some variances). So, if you get 100 tons this years, you may expect between 50 or 150 tons next year, and the following one, and so on. There is the occasional drought or flood, but as not all the world suffers drought or flood at the same time, global production numbers do not vary that much. You cannot overproduce(*) because you are limited to your resources.

With cattle, you can overproduce by killing for meat more animals that those that born. But then, if you are doing things bad you'll realize that every time you have less stock and will foresee what is going to happen so usually (out of dire necessity) you won't do that.

In fishing, the product grows "alone" and is not yours until you catch it. So, you can overproduce (kill more fish that it borns) and in fact overproducing does not affect you immediately (because it is not "your fish" that you are saving for later, but "everyone's fish"). If you want an analogy, think of what would happen to the fields around the cities if we closed farms and decided to go back to hunting/gathering.... do you think anything would survive?

So, before saying something akin to "if we do not catch all the fish available we are gonna die of hunger", please, please, think that fishing can easily be the less sustainable way of getting food.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Nursie]

Which is why you legislate and police.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[willy_me]

The rich notice that the resources aren't going to last, so they point at the scraps and say "You can't have that, or there won't be any left tomorrow."

Not really. The rich generally eat different species then those eaten by the poor. It is those species that are in high demand (because they are valuable) that are at risk. You will not see much tuna, salmon, or halibut being sold in Somalia. Restrictions on fishing for these species will not impact global hunger. But prices will go up at your favourite sushi bar.

they find something that's not protected and exhaust that instead

Very true, but you are talking about local problems. If a species of fish in Chinese waters is in danger then it is up to the Chinese officials to correct the problem. Likewise, it is up to Canadian officials to solve the problem off the West coast of their country.

If you significantly restricted fishing, Japan would starve.

No they would not. Much of Japan's diet is based on seafood but most of it does not come from species at risk. Lots of shrimp, prawns, and seaweed. Combine this with the fact that they could easily import more food - there would be no problems. Hong Kong had no problems when it was a British colony and you know they didn't grow / catch all their own food.

The commercial fishing industry is merely the agent representing hunger.

So not true. If everyone had twice the food they required, the commercial fishing industry would still slaughter fish stocks in an attempt to make more money. The commercial fishing industry is just that - commercial. They don't give a damn if people are starving, they just care about their profits. More precisely, they care about their short term profits (under 10 years) and are willing to destroy the possibility of long term profits via overfishing.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[xkuehn]

1. None of this changes the point - that if fishing is not curtailed there will shortly be no fish.

I agree. I just don't think we can solve the problem with fishing quotas unless they're one small part of a large, complex solution.

2. My original comment was aimed at places like Scotland.

I understand but, as I said, food is traded on a worldwide market. Every restriction raises prices and hurts the poor. And if you restrict fishing in one place, they fish ten miles away. Desperate people do desperate things. I called you ignorant of suffering, no offense but it's true: you wouldn't believe how easily poor people will kill you if you threaten their food supply. Any significant change in worldwide price/supply would cause mass riots and force governments to change their minds about the restrictions. This is why we must look at the causes of the problem: overpopulation and waste. Manipulating supply can be a part of the solution, but only if it's very carefully managed.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[xkuehn]

Doesn't work that way. Hunger knows no law. Poor parts of the world will revolt if their food supply is threatened and whoever takes over will surely ignore the rules.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[willy_me]

I have caught wild Sockeye and they do not suffer from sea lice the way local fish do.

But were you catching fry? Catching healthy adult Salmon doesn't mean a thing if they sea lice are killing the young.

But I must agree with most of your comments. I always thought they should just dig a really big hole next to the ocean for raising fish. Line the hole and cover with gravel / concrete. Then circulate and filter ocean water thereby ensuring the health of both the environment and the domesticated salmon. It would obviously be more expensive, but it would work.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[DarthVain]

Stewardship requires active management. It also requires some sort of centralized organization. Like Government.

Conservatives I think would somehow like to believe if left to private industry and innovation, that the invisible hand of the market will solve all the problems. Corporate interests will see the long term ramifications of this and act decisively!

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[xkuehn]

No. I never said people should catch all the fish. I said people will. Poor people eat whatever is cheapest, and stuff taken from the commons is cheapest.

If you make rules telling them otherwise, they ignore it because they want to live. If their government says they can't, they revolt.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Nursie]

If you restrict EU fishermen, they cannot fish. If you restrict Canadian fishermen, they cannot fish.

It is the developed world that is fishing things to oblivion. Fishing restrictions do nothing to threaten the food supply of the developed world. Europeans and Canadians will not go on killing sprees over this.

This is why we must look at the causes of the problem: overpopulation and waste. Manipulating supply can be a part of the solution, but only if it's very carefully managed.

And this is where you are ignorant. Supremely. And fucking dumb too.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

If nothing is done there will be no fish stocks. Get that through your dense skull.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Nursie]

So you're not actually saying anything worthwhile at all here. My initial comment was that the fishing industry cannot be trusted to do what's best for the oceans or for humanity, in ensuring we have a continuing manner.

You actually agree but for some reason felt it necessary to call me ignorant.

Nice.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Nursie]

Which is why you legislate and police from the nations that are not run by hungry savages, particular in the waters these nations control.

What is your malfunction?

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[cowboy76Spain]

But it is not the poors who are catching the fish.

Fishing in the high seas requires an important technology (fishing vessels, factory vessels and so on). According to Wikipedia, People's Republic of China (excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan), Peru, Japan, the United States, Chile, Indonesia, Russia, India, Thailand, Norway and Iceland are responsible for half of the commercial fishing of the world. You may point out (with reserves) Peru, Indonesia or Thailand, but the rest of countries are not doing it because they need the food so their people does not starve.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Cederic]

How the hell do you expect to feed 7*10^9 people?

Sustainable food production might be a useful start. Current intensive ocean fishing is not sustainable.

NOT sustainable.

7*10^9 people wont last long on the 5 fish that are left, unless you have a handy stock of Jesus types.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Belial6]

This is really a big part of the problem. Fishing is the only massive worldwide food staple that relies on hunting/gathering. It is also in a place that the vast majority of people cannot see, so doing the equivalent of clear cutting to the fish stock doesn't leave the dramatic photo shoots that clear cutting redwoods does. Hunting/gathering is horribly anti-ecological. It was bad for the environment when Indians roamed the plains of North America, and it is bad for the environment now. Being hunter/gatherers only work for small populations.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[cowboy76Spain]

And, in addition, I somehow doubt that even in Peru or Thailand it is the poor who are buying fishing ships able to travel several thousand kilometers and stay fishing for months while being supplied by factory ships that process the fish, searching for banks of fish. The poor stay in the territorial waters, usually return home at the end of the day and catch what they can within its reach.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Cederic]

The fact is that there are so many mouths to feed. I wish I could bring you over here so you can see for yourself.

So grow some fucking food.
Teach people to use birth control.
Educate your women (and yes, that's scientifically demonstrated to reduce birth rates and improve quality of life).
Emigrate.
Build an industry that can generate the export funds needed to buy food from elsewhere.

There's a fuck of a lot that can be done, wherever you are, that doesn't involve overfishing. This includes letting nature take its course: overpopulation leads to starvation and death. Don't expect me to cry about it, life's too fucking short.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[ginbot462]

Wow .. only on slashdot. The geekest thread I've ever read on fish. Goes to show... US population is dragging Slashdot's IQ down (myself included). But, really .. were just bitter.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[xkuehn]

This includes letting nature take its course: overpopulation leads to starvation and death.

See, that's your problem. All of /. seems to think the poor will let themselves starve to death so the rich can live the good life. I hope to see your head on a pike.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Hmmm and yet last year there was a record salmon run - the largest run since 1913. Of course that was mostly Sockeye, not Coho which are in some danger. So you see you can't just talk about "Salmon" ... when people go on rants lumping them all together it seems more like a love of politics than a love of science and "facts".

We might also look into the preferential treatment given native fishing... they get first crack at the stocks, longer periods of fishing than other groups etc. Why? "For traditional ceremonial and sustenance purposes"... funny though I've driven through parts of BC where the you can't throw a stone without hitting a "Fresh Salmon For Sale" sign... of course those were reserves - traditional and sustenance purposes, uh huh sure thing.

I've also walked the shores of lakes on the migration path - well not on the shores, you couldn't do that because they were covered in thousands of dead salmon who were out-competed by other salmon.

And I would be very sceptical of the reports of salmon stocks suffering because of sea lice unless you 'have talked to someone who actually witnessed the methodology used for obtaining samples.

Unfortunately it has become more and more acceptable for "scientists" to let their personal bias inform their work. A very sad state. Trying to lay it all at the feet of politicians, and especially politicians of one flavor, is neither accurate nor productive, it just muddies the waters, incites prejudice and adds to the difficulty of ferreting out the real truth.

http://www.danmccomb.com/posts/706/record-salmon-run-hits-british-columbia/
http://fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?l=e&country=0&special=&monthyear=&day=&id=38227&ndb=1&df=0
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100905/bc-salmon-fisheries-100905/20100905?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Ol Olsoc]

And the frail fragile children are the end result we're heading toward for everyone. We won't stop breeding until nature enforces it on us. We're really smart, and can adapt much of the world to our needs, but where do we go from here. Here's where: As human population continues to grow, protein is going to be harder to come by. The problem with continually producing more food to provide for continually producing more people to consume it is that we will be forced to start making our own food- run further down the food chain so as to gain food volume. Future food sources will start leaving the natural world, and factories will be putting out various algaes and yeasts. The food of the not too distant future will very likely be synthetic stuff, grown in a tank.

If we make it that far. All this stuff takes water to grow food as well as for human consumption. There will probably be a war in the not too distant future over water. Maybe if enough people are killed, we might avoid the first scenario. Not a very good solution at all.

And for your statement about the man who eats the last fish. What does he eat after that?

Rampant reproduction will end human life on earth. Or at least reduce it to the way it was many thousands of years ago, barbaric humans eking out a survival. Oddly enough Nature doesn't care. The rest of us will come to share your situation, not the other way around.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Ol Olsoc]

Okay. Let's say that your premise is true about us evil rich people only giving poor people scraps.

How about all the wealthy people disappear overnight. Are the poor suddenly well fed? What if in a fit of altruism, the wealthy reduce their standard of living to starvation levels and give every last calorie to the poor people. Will the poor people manage this well?

A less extreme example of this has been an ongoing experiment during the 20th century. The third world had an appalling rate of infant mortality, diseases and starvation. The developed world did indeed come along and provide medical care, food and many things to improve those people's lives. And they lived. It was like a miracle in many cases. But what happened? More infants survived to adulthood, and created new generations of people. And soon, we have a whole lot more people.

We just didn't look at the whole picture. People living on the edge of survival breed as fast as they can. It's survival nature. When we make the odds of survival better, it takes a lot of time and comfort to slow down the breeding, and some groups never do.

As for the answer to that problem - I haven't the beginnings of an idea. It's easy to say that help might be well made by some sort of control on reproduction, but there are a lot of groups who would never stand for that. I don't think we have it in us, and will just eventually run out of resources, then starvation or disease will solve the issue. Gar - that's pretty bleak.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Ol Olsoc]

Read about the Peruvian Anchovita disaster. It shows what happens when you fish a stock to depletion. It didn't just crash the fish market, but the birds who fed on the fish and died or went away, and no longer produced the rich guano fertilizer.

So the hungry man kills his last bit of food, ensuring his starvation. If that is the highest level of thought that people can rise to -"what I need to eat right now", they simply won't survive. If you can't think about how you will eat tomorrow, you won't eat tomorrow.

Ever watch animals eat? Many of them are quite sloppy, spreading seeds around, and some bury nuts and forget about them, which then sprout and grow seed bearning bushes and trees that produce more nuts. Point is, these animals aren't being wasteful, their sloppy actions are actually allowing them to survive as a species. Animals that efficiently eat up everything in their path simply starve in the end, because nothing is left. They go extinct. That's what your man eating the last fish is doing - ensuring his elimination.

Re:Let the fishermen be the judge

[Ol Olsoc]

It isn't a matter of the poor letting themselves starve to death. They WILL starve to death if they don't manage things. If they reproduce at an unsustainable rate, it will just simply happen. The rich people and nations that you hate have sent a lot of food and medicines to the poor. But if the poor don't exercise some sort of population restraint, the bad end result will just be delayed.

leak the damn thing

[heitikender]

What we need, is that someone would leak the report and the whole drama would be moot. Where's A(nonymous)-Team?

Re:leak the damn thing

[catchblue22]

Okay, Explain to me how the paper has been published in a peer reviewed journal, and the Canadian government is "muzzling scientists" by not letting the author of said paper speak about it to major news agencies, when she is a government employee and subject to certain employment restrictions.

She is being muzzled because she is not being allowed to talk about her findings to the public via the press. Her findings are buried in a pay for access science journal that is likely written in language that most in the public will not understand.

Re:leak the damn thing

[heitikender]

The canadian language is fine, my friends speaks it and even knows scienco dialect. But that paywall thing is major roadblock :)

Re:leak the damn thing

[Gorshkov]

She is being muzzled because she is not being allowed to talk about her findings to the public via the press. Her findings are buried in a pay for access science journal that is likely written in language that most in the public will not understand.

TFA said she was told she couldn't speak because she has to give evidence in a judicial inquiry. Then came much officious huffing and puffing from lefty paranoids about how it was an excuse and that she was being muzzled.

Unfortunately for those theories, TFA also said, near the end of the article, that she will be allowed to speak in August, WHEN HER TESTIMONY HAS BEEN COMPLETED.

So call the PMO paranoid. Make fun of them, if that's your wont - god knows that hasn't been a PMO since the country began that hasn't been stupid or out to lunch is very many ways, both Tory and Liberal. Vote against the Tories next chance you get, if you are so inclined.

But you don't need to invent stuff or pull it out of your arse just to score political points. All it does is make you look strident, knee-jerk, and absolutely invalidates the point you were trying to make in the first place.

Re:leak the damn thing

[heitikender]

I'm warning you - if I will still remember to follow this theme in the end of August or whenever that final paper will be out, and she still can't speak her mind, i WILL come back here and reply to you: "Ha! Told you so!" I agree on you, that bad science is worse than no science. Still, I wouldn't muffle anybody. It's like Barbra Streisand effect.

Re:leak the damn thing

[Gorshkov]

I'm warning you - if I will still remember to follow this theme in the end of August or whenever that final paper will be out, and she still can't speak her mind, i WILL come back here and reply to you: "Ha! Told you so!" I agree on you, that bad science is worse than no science. Still, I wouldn't muffle anybody. It's like Barbra Streisand effect.

Apparently, you haven't read TFA *or* my comment. First - the final paper is out and published. That's what caused the media interest in the first place. Second - the whole point of my comment was that she *hasn't* been muzzled because of her science, the results or indeed, for any reason - she's been told she can't speak until her testimony at a legal proceeding has been completed.

It'd kinda like telling your friends that your mother said you aren't allowed to play with them for the rest of your life, when all she did was say you had to clean your room first.

Re:leak the damn thing

[ColdWetDog]

I'm curious - what is the point of having her NOT talk to the press before this judicial inquiry (which isn't a trial as far as I can tell) while the information is already out in the public domain? Will the evidence be tainted? Are there precedents for this sort of thing?

Re:leak the damn thing

[Gorshkov]

I'm curious - what is the point of having her NOT talk to the press before this judicial inquiry (which isn't a trial as far as I can tell) while the information is already out in the public domain? Will the evidence be tainted? Are there precedents for this sort of thing?

First, let me make it very, very clear - I don't have access to any information other than what's contained in the article. I have, however, been rather heavily involved in politics at the national level in Ottawa in the past, so I've got a bit of an idea of the mindset. What I'm about to say is my own suspicion - and it's what *I* would be worried about, if I was in that position. I doubt her paper is directly related to what she is expected to testify to before the inquiry - otherwise, she'd not have been allowed to publish it in the first place. So I don't think that's it.

It is, however, reasonable to assume she's going to testify about something related, however tangentially - her research was job related, and her testimony is also going to be job related.

Depending on how wide-ranging or open the interview is - or how naive SHE is when dealing with the press, or if a reporter is a fan of the 60 minutes school of ambush interviewing - there's a chance she could say something what *would* have potential political and legal consequences, if some of her statements regarding her paper overlap the subject matter of the inquiry. So the safest course of action would be to simply not talk to reporters until her testimony. Seems reasonable to me, and not something to worry about or waste righteous indignation on.

Now - if after her testimony she is still not allowed to talk to the press, THEN you have something that's a news story, and something to get cranked about. But I don't think there's anything here yet.

Politicians of all stripes screw up all the time - sorry, folks, but it wasn't invented by the Tories, the Liberals, the Left, the Right, the Inbetweens, or anybody else.

So why not just take a deep breath, calm down, and wait for something to happen that's worth getting cranked about? It's only a matter of time. There's no need to invent shit.

Re:leak the damn thing

[heitikender]

Yes! My bad, I meant to write final paper on whatever testimony she gives. I tried to find an explanation, why are they trying to muffle her or anybody - maybe on the grounds that the science done was badly done - sloppy work of smth.

Re:leak the damn thing

[tbannist]

No, the rules about talking to news media without permission are a Harper invention. It was originally used to muzzle scientists who were critical of the oil sands and the government position on climate change. Since then they've discovered that it can be used in two ways, to keep all kinds of stories out of the national media through the threat of termination for unauthorized speaking, and through terminating the careers of anyone brave enough to rock the boat. They look at it is a zugzwang position, anyone who speaks out can be discredited by firing with cause, followed by anonymous slander and the rest will be kept in check by the fear of retaliation.

Re:leak the damn thing

[tbannist]

That is entirely dependent on the assumption that the the inquiry isn't just the excuse currently being used to muzzle her. The point isn't to suppress the information for ever, because that won't work, it's to mitigate the damage done by the report. Harper just needs to make sure that the media interest in the topic dies out first, then she'll be free to talk to all the reporters who no longer want to talk to her.

Re:leak the damn thing

[Hatta]

TFA said she was told she couldn't speak because she has to give evidence in a judicial inquiry.

Why does that make it OK? Why should judges be able to stop scientists from reporting their results to the public in a timely manner? As long as the evidence she gives on the stand is accurate, why does it matter what she does in the media?

Re:leak the damn thing

[Gorshkov]

That is entirely dependent on the assumption that the the inquiry isn't just the excuse currently being used to muzzle her.

Am I the only person here who's actually read TFA? Her paper has been published in the freaking LANCET

Do you have any idea how the government works? How many levels up the food chain she would have had to go to get permission to submit the paper in the first place? How many times it would have been reviewed by her bosses, on multiple levels, before it was allowed to go out the door? If this is what you call suppression, then every federal politician should be shot to remove them from the gene pool, and every civil servant in that department should be fired for being too stupid to live.

Is she also forbidden to speak at conferences, to her fellow scientists? Has she been told she also can't talk to others in her department, involved in the same areas of research? Other colleagues in her area of expertise, who don't work at Fisheries? Well, I don't know, and neither do you or anybody else here - because TFA doesn't mention it. Bottom line - there is nothing in that story that supports a claim of repression. The fact that the article was published at all makes it false on it's face. Hell - I came up with a reasonable, rational argument for why this may have been done while reading the article in the first place - it's not like it took any large amounts of brain power, so you can't exactly jump to conclusions and scream "THIS IS THE REASON! THIS IS THE REASON!".

The point isn't to suppress the information for ever, because that won't work, it's to mitigate the damage done by the report.

WHAT damage? Salmon are dying on the west coast. Not exactly news - it's been happening for years. Federal officials have conducted a study, and think they may have a lead on the cause .... and published the results in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. How is any of this possibly bad news? What is there to be suppressed?

Harper just needs to make sure that the media interest in the topic dies out first, then she'll be free to talk to all the reporters who no longer want to talk to her.

Right. Well, the paper was published in February - and there's still a queue of how many reporters wanting to talk to her, 7 months later? She's due to testify in August - without knowing the dates, she could be on the stand and done within the next week, or it could be a long as 30 days. Either way, I doubt they're all going to disappear that quickly, of they've been waiting this long and are still interested.

Occams Razor: The simplest explanation that fits all known facts is the one most likely to be correct.
So tell me - what do you think is the simplest explanation - that they want to hold off till she's finished her testimony sometime within the next month, or that's it's a plot on the part of the federal government to suppress a report that shows progress for solving a major economic and environmental problem that can't be suppressed because it's already been published?

Re:leak the damn thing

[Gorshkov]

Why does that make it OK? Why should judges be able to stop scientists from reporting their results to the public in a timely manner? As long as the evidence she gives on the stand is accurate, why does it matter what she does in the media?

For the same reason that witnesses aren't allowed to talk to other witnesses before their testimony, why juries are often sequestered - or if not, invariably forbidden as a matter of course to not discuss the case with anybody else, or read news coverage of the trial they're on, etc - to avoid influencing somebody else's testimony, and to maintain impartiality so that any decision is based only on the evidence presented in court.

Also - I know I'm sounding like a broken record - she has NOT been prevented from reporting her results. That was done when she was published in the Lancet. She's been forbidden from talking to reporters till after she's testified - nothing more, nothing less.

Re:leak the damn thing

[tbannist]

A a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger in action.

It's not a plot, idiot, it's standard operating procedure for the "Harper Government", it's perfectly fine for research to be published in specialty journals with small readerships. It's quite another to allow the scientist to talk to reporters from media organizations that have large audiences.

I mean if you read the article you must have read:

Researchers, who used to be free to discuss their science, are now required to follow a process that includes "media lines" approved by communications officers, strategists and ministerial staff in Ottawa. They vet media requests, demand reporters' questions in advance and decide when and if researchers can give interviews.

and

To Hutchings, the muzzling of Miller is "all about control — controlling the message and controlling communication."

The article goes on a length about exactly what I wrote, that the hearing is being used as the excuse to muzzle her. I spotted that right off because it's standard operating procedure for the "Harper Government". I mean, how many god damn times do we have to see the exact same scenarios play out before we begin to recognize what is happening. This has happened over and over again, with the suppression of the study on the long gun registry, the lies about the census, the suppression of global warming research until after a major conference has passed. Harper is all about total control of the government. It is, by far, the simpler explanation that he is continuing in his own special brand of micromanagement, than it is to believe a scientist is being prevented from talking to the media or the public because what she says might impugn on the impartiality of a government inquiry. She's not the judge conducting the inquiry, she's an expert being called to testify before it. Are they going to toss out any evidence presented by the commercial interests because it might appear biased? Of course not.

Stop being such a god damned gullible fool.

Re:leak the damn thing

[CCarrot]

It's not a plot, idiot, it's standard operating procedure for the "Harper Government", it's perfectly fine for research to be published in specialty journals with small readerships. It's quite another to allow the scientist to talk to reporters from media organizations that have large audiences.

I mean if you read the article you must have read:

Researchers, who used to be free to discuss their science, are now required to follow a process that includes "media lines" approved by communications officers, strategists and ministerial staff in Ottawa. They vet media requests, demand reporters' questions in advance and decide when and if researchers can give interviews.

Indeed. Because the media never blows things out of proportion, misinterprets the science, or tries to maneuver inexperienced laymen into making statements that can be taken out of context and published on the front page in bold block alarmist letters. And such practices never influence the results of any trial or inquiry, because naturally all the people involved will voluntarily sequester themselves from everything to do with the issue they're investigating and hearing about every day.

Riight, I think you have that one nailed, "it's all Harper's fault, gawd dammit!"

If it bleeds, it leads. That's why corporations and government agencies (and yes, even universities) have and use media relations consultants, and why employees are told to refer any questions on any topic that could even be *remotely* sensational (with the proper twisting of facts and application of out-of-context statements) to those departments. Unless you work with the media regularly, you won't know their little (pardon the phrase) 'fishing' statements and how to counter them and get them to stick to the facts. Until you learn how to handle them, you shouldn't be the one feeding them.

Whistleblowers are another matter entirely, of course, but are generally protected by anonymity and being able to deal on-on-one with a journalist that (I hope!) they trust not to twist their words, not a media scrum.

Stop being such a god damned gullible fool.

Bit of the pot calling the kettle black, don't'cha think?

Re:leak the damn thing

[tbannist]

And this twisting of things by reporters is a relatively new thing, right? I'm sure it was coined since Harper came into office right? It's not older than that? I mean the rule about the PMO approving everything scientists are allowed to say the media is only 5 years old, so there must been tonnes of scandals and gotcha reporting on these topics six, seven or eight years ago, right? When the Liberals were in power it must have been a huge problem, right?

It is, in fact, Harper's fault. It's specifically his policy. It's specifically the Prime Minister's Office which has declared that she shall not speak to the press until after their arbitrary date. Furthermore, it exactly matches the way he treats the other members of his party (whom he can unilaterally fire by refusing to sign their nomination papers). Harper's a media control freak, this behavior shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, because it is typically Harper.

Re:jumping the gun

[Unkyjar]

Isn't a scientific report by definition made of facts and not hysteria?

Re:Conartist Party Lies

[KingAlanI]

Yes, give other historical villains a chance.

Re:Conartist Party Lies

[physicsphairy]

Did this really just get modded "informative" for attacking the way the Prime Minister's name is spelled?

Kind of said it all

[redkcir]

The Privy Council Office. If any of you remember what a Privy is, that should explain it. For those who don't see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy, bullet #4.

Re:Kind of said it all

[JasterBobaMereel]

Privy : Means Private ...

In this case a group of Ex Cabinet ministers and MP's all appointed by the Prime Minister ...so an arm of the government ...basically a group of politicians

 

Re:Kind of said it all

[gaderael]

FLUUUUUUUUSSSSSSH!

Re:Kind of said it all

[Dwonis]

Privy : Means Private ...

In this case a group of Ex Cabinet ministers and MP's all appointed by the Prime Minister ...so an arm of the government ...basically a group of politicians

In Canada, the Privy Council Office is the means by which the Cabinet exercises its executive power. It isn't so much an "arm" of the government; it *is* the government.

Re:Kind of said it all

[redkcir]

I knew this. Comparison still valid.

Re:Kind of said it all

[Dwonis]

That's what I get for not RTFL. You are correct. Carry on.

Re:another 1/3 for possessing hacker tools

[MacTO]

And the other 1/3rd for ...

Or maybe not. Harper is dangerously ideological, but he is not stupid. He is skilled at manipulating public opinion and likes to prey upon the vulnerable once he has swayed public opinion (which usually reenforces people's support for him). But it is unlikely that he would ever initiate a campaign of terror that would end up with 2/3rds of Canada's population being in jail. Or even 5% of our population for that matter.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[Anonymous Coward]

In that respect, it's not much different from a tobacco company telling their scientists not to talk about the health effects of smoking.

And the tobacco companies are not exactly a model to be emulated. Besides, the government is supposed to represent the public interest, and it is not in the public interest to suppress the truth. The government is definitely doing the wrong thing here, and probably for political reasons, which is even worse.

Re:Conartist Party Lies

[metacell]

The moderation itself deserves a +1 Funny ;-)

From the abstract

[reve_etrange]

Long-term population viability of Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) is threatened by unusually high levels of mortality as they swim to their spawning areas before they spawn. Functional genomic studies on biopsied gill tissue from tagged wild adults that were tracked through ocean and river environments revealed physiological profiles predictive of successful migration and spawning. We identified a common genomic profile that was correlated with survival in each study. In ocean-tagged fish, a mortality-related genomic signature was associated with a 13.5-fold greater chance of dying en route. In river-tagged fish, the same genomic signature was associated with a 50% increase in mortality before reaching the spawning grounds in one of three stocks tested. At the spawning grounds, the same signature was associated with 3.7-fold greater odds of dying without spawning. Functional analysis raises the possibility that the mortality-related signature reflects a viral infection.

The DOI is 10.1126/science.1196901.
The genomic signature that their microarray analysis identified suggests: 1) infection by a virus (virus associated pathways activated), 2) a possible connection to certain leukemias (same reason) and 3) osmotic gradient control malfunctions contributing to stress and mortality (same reason). Apologies to those without access - but Science isn't open - but their methods seem very sound. I really don't see the point of suppressing this. All that media attention would change is how polished her presentation is when that commission or whatever gets around to talking to her.

P.S. The biopsies were non-lethal!

Re:From the abstract

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire paper is freely available here: http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/qgjc/2010_2011/Canadian%20Salmon%20genomic%20signature%20Science.pdf

It's fairly old (February), seems a bit late to be suppressing anything...

Re:From the abstract

[reve_etrange]

There is a difference between an academic publication accessible to a small number of people, and science journalism conducted by reporters writing for a public audience.
They are suppressing a popularized account based on her explanations to reporters, not the technical account which few could understand.

Re:From the abstract

[ColdWetDog]

There is a difference between an academic publication accessible to a small number of people, and science journalism conducted by reporters writing for a public audience. They are suppressing a popularized account based on her explanations to reporters, not the technical account which few could understand.

Yes, but the information is out there. It's published in one of the highest visibility general science journals in the English language. Since there are many people who's lives are impacted by this research, and there are other researchers in the field, it's not likely that the information is going to be repressed in any meaningful way.

It's a dumbshit move, typical of politicians and may not even be malevolent, but it's not a very good way to keep the knowledge closely kept.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[MacTO]

Thus the comparison to the tobacco companies. That being said, I think that a man like Harper believe that the governent departments are there to inform policy decisions rather than the public. Whether he listens to what they say is an open question, but they must not question his authority ... erm, leadership. That's likely also why he screwed around with the census.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[1u3hr]

. In that respect, it's not much different from a tobacco company telling their scientists not to talk about the health effects of smoking.

It's completely different. But the morality is simple: they're civil servants. "Civil" means the people of the country, not the government in power. In practice, of course, if you embarrass those in power you will be punished.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the small part that the government is not a private company, government agencies are supposed to serve the people rather than the current ruling party. That includes getting the truth out so that the people can make informed voting decisions, even if this is inconvenient for the current regime.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a department of the federal government. It is emphatically not an independent university research scientist nor even an independent (from the governent) research scientist. Since they are an employee of the government they are expected to comply with their employers demands. In this case, it mean that you won't get to say much unless you are echoing government policy. In that respect, it's not much different from a tobacco company telling their scientists not to talk about the health effects of smoking.

Hey genius - who is paying for her research? It's the taxpayers of Canada. The same taxpayers the fascists running the government want to keep in the dark about research findings that will have a direct impact on the public well-being.

It's not anything equivalent to working for a private company. That is a stupid comparison.

Re:another 1/3 for possessing hacker tools

[CyberSaint]

Optimist.

Harper doesn't give a shit about public opinion. He's skilled at selling a story and manipulating the shit out of the media. He hasn't actually achieved a damn thing of significance since his first term as Prime Minister. He's managed to convince half the country sitting on his hands and pushing an agenda that bears no resemblance to his campaign platforms is progress. "Staying the Course" my maple dipped left testicle. He's even managed to blame his opposition for him repeatedly sabotaging his own legislation.

I don't have any doubt, if he could find a way to make a buck for him or his corporate handlers doing it, he'd jail every citizen in the country.

~Disgruntled Albertan

Re:jumping the gun

[metacell]

That depends on if you include bad science in your definition of science.

There is a HUGE difference

[aepervius]

Tobacco= private, can do whatever they want with their money, even suppress the own research they asked for, even if unethical. Departement of Fisheries = PUBLIC, they are beholden to the public interest, and have no right to suppress research done with the PUBLIC money. And this is the big difference.

Re:another 1/3 for possessing hacker tools

[JustOK]

1/3 in jail for copyright violations, 1/3 for hacker tools and the other half still in underfunded schools saying their muslim prayers

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[epine]

I've talked to many people about the census, and the only intelligible reason for him screwing around with the census that comes to light is so that there's less quality data available to organizations doing good work with fewer agendas. I've always heard that the quality of StatsCan data was legendary, in part for having excellent continuity and statistical control. Well, it only takes one man to burn the library of Alexandria, doesn't it?

I'm not so sure this majority will work in his favour. Rome fell when they ran out of other countries to pillage. In Harper's case, the limiting resource is other people to blame.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[Kashgarinn]

Of course the difference here is that the government should represent the people and the people's interest, and letting the people know about the research is normal.

If your representatives are willing to block something vaguely important like this, what are they hiding which is really important?

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[should_be_linear]

I don't think you (or Canadian government) understands how science works.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[Cant use a slash wtf]

And are either of those situations supposed to be good?
Not to mention the fact that this is a GOVERNMENT employee. As in, they are doing research with the TAX DOLLAR. If anything, government-employed scientists should be the least likely to be silenced.

Re:Conartist Party Lies

[shutdown -p now]

Sorry, Stalin is already reserved for hyperbolic Obama comparisons. You can't dilute the brand like that.

Re:another 1/3 for possessing hacker tools

[Zeroedout]

A big fat +1 to you sir.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[MacTO]

I think that a lot of people are missing the point of my earlier comment:

This is the way the world works, and it will continue to work like that no matter how upset you get about it. Accepting the word of a government research scientist is foolish because there is a conflict of interest. The government wants to promote an agenda and some governments will do anything to make sure that everyone toes the line. This is really no different than accepting the word of a tobacco or pharmaceutical company research scientist because their employers have a product to sell. You have a clear conflict of interest, taking what they say as the whole truth would be dangerous.

Now you can go through life screaming that scientists shouldn't be muzzled, but the fact of the matter is that you're going to lead a very bitter and angry life. It has happened, there is no way to stop it from happening, so it is going to happen again. So face up to the facts and start looking at researchers that are not in a place where interests conflict, which would include most university research scientists.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[wrook]

Science doesn't work through interviews. The research isn't being muzzled, it's the follow up interviews by the media. The reason you have something to complain about is because the government did a study and published the results.

Personally, I don't like the situation and I don't think the government should be acting this way. But there is no real reason why we need an interview with the scientists. We have a research paper we can read if we want their scientific opinion. The reason for interviewing them is to get their personal opinion of the situation. What the government is worried about is that the scientists' personal opinion conflicts with government policy. Or, in fact, they may also be worried that the media will take the scientists' comments out of context and use it to create controversy over government policy.

The long and the short of it is that we have a real problem. I don't need the scientists' personal opinion about the situation because I already have their scientific opinion. This controversy over "muzzling" the scientists distracts from the issue at hand, which is that the fishery is in real trouble.

Documentary about Canadian fishing

[jr0dy]

I caught a great documentary one time regarding the way in which he Canadian government is destroying both fish and independent hand-line fishermen - it's called "One More Dead Fish". I highly recommend it - it's a glaring example of Corporatism, outside of US borders for once.

Re:Documentary about Canadian fishing

[Mashiki]

Oh you mean controlling the number of fishermen, and the totals caught. Because european countries have been running amok and fishing up everything they can get their hands on, and china, and russia? Ah yeah. Corporatism my ass. Canada placed artificial limits on fishing damaging our industry because no one else gives a rats ass.

Of course this has created a nice boom in fishfarms.

Over Fishing

[Stan92057]

Over Fishing,Pollution,Dams. So what is it we don't already know?

Re:Over Fishing

[tbannist]

This one appears to be "evidence indicates that fish farms are infecting wild fish with deadly diseases (because they're placed on the migration path of wild fish)".

Re:Over Fishing

[Stan92057]

All the fish in the ocean are being over fished not just the salmon.There not going to be happy until they kill the last whale or skin the last shark for its dorsal fin. They are farming because they are overfishing in the first place. Our globes fish/shell creatures need a break. So now there being killed by farm fish diseases created by man.

Links for the paper

[damn_registrars]

You can read the abstract at pubmed:

Genomic signatures predict migration and spawning failure in wild Canadian salmon.

Which gives you a link to sciencemag.org:

Science Abstract

Of course, there is a paywall at sciencemag.org. Being as all the researchers are Canadian, there is no NIH requirement for the paper to be released for free. You may need to venture to your local university library to download the paper, but with those links it won't be hard to get. You can get as far as the abstract for free:

Long-term population viability of Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) is threatened by unusually high levels of mortality as they swim to their spawning areas before they spawn. Functional genomic studies on biopsied gill tissue from tagged wild adults that were tracked through ocean and river environments revealed physiological profiles predictive of successful migration and spawning. We identified a common genomic profile that was correlated with survival in each study. In ocean-tagged fish, a mortality-related genomic signature was associated with a 13.5-fold greater chance of dying en route. In river-tagged fish, the same genomic signature was associated with a 50% increase in mortality before reaching the spawning grounds in one of three stocks tested. At the spawning grounds, the same signature was associated with 3.7-fold greater odds of dying without spawning. Functional analysis raises the possibility that the mortality-related signature reflects a viral infection.

Re:Links for the paper

[damn_registrars]

A good point. Thankfully the journal Science is even common in public libraries; I just checked the public library system where I grew up and found they even have it there.

This is amazing news!

[cvtan]

George Bush is now the president of Canada.

Re:This is amazing news!

[Rheostatik]

George Bush is now the president of Canada.

It's worse than that. Unlike Bush, Harper is incredibly intelligent. God help us all.

So, based on which law do they prevent?

[drolli]

Whats the law behind that. Nobody can prevent a Journalist from talking to her and i doubt that if the paper was published under her official affiliation there is anything they can do about it. (since, if you go the permission to publish from your employer, what you publish is his position)

Re:So, based on which law do they prevent?

[ImOnlySleeping]

You should probably read your next employment contract.

Re:So, based on which law do they prevent?

[drolli]

I am reading all my employment contracts.

My last one specifically stated i would not be allowed to disseminate information without permission. So we always had a fill form which allowed to do that before we got another form to submit the paper. After that nobody could stop me from talking about this.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[Gorshkov]

Hey genius - who is paying for her research? It's the taxpayers of Canada. The same taxpayers the fascists running the government want to keep in the dark about research findings that will have a direct impact on the public well-being.

I know people love to call anybody even remotely right of centre fascists, and that they love to see conspiracies in everything .... but I'm having a hard time trying to think of a scenario where publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a journal as prestigious and well-known as the Lancet could possibly be considered to be "keeping people in the dark". But hey, that's just me.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[drinkypoo]

Well, it only takes one man to burn the library of Alexandria, doesn't it?

No, it takes a bunch of men, because there were a number of libraries at Alexandria.

Re:Conartist Party Lies

[pnewhook]

What a crock of shit.

Voluntary Juries.

[mevets]

Nobody should be threatened to perform public service; besides there are lots of people who would gladly serve on juries. What could go wrong?

Hilarious..

[mevets]

Those outside of Canada probably won't get the joke.
Every conservative MP in canada begins everything they say with "Lets be clear", "Let me make it very clear" etc... as some sort of warning that a major porky is on the way...

Re:Hilarious..

[Gorshkov]

Those outside of Canada probably won't get the joke. Every conservative MP in canada begins everything they say with "Lets be clear", "Let me make it very clear" etc... as some sort of warning that a major porky is on the way...

Or, maybe it wasn't a joke. Maybe - just maybe - I was trying to make sure that people knew that what I was saying was strictly my own opinion, based only on the information that's available to everybody else - ie, TFA.

In the immortal words of Grouch Marx ..... sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Re:Hilarious..

[anagama]

Ahh, just like the "make no mistake" prelude popularized by Bush.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[Dwonis]

How do you prevent corruption, institutionally, with an attitude like that?

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[tbannist]

I take it that in your world, a man can only ever start one fire.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[tbannist]

Interesting, because deliberately concealing the research about the health effects of smoking is a big part of what enabled the lawsuits against the tobacco companies. So what you're saying is that it's not only unethical, it's also possibly illegal? Or were you trying to make some other point?

Minister of Environment, J Baird

[mevets]

When he took that position in early 2007 said that
        The facts are in about climate change; the time for study is over; it is time for action.

His action was to fire the climate scientists from Environment Canada. EC has been reduced to a marketing wing of the tar sands oil extraction travesty.

There is a pattern.

Re:another 1/3 for possessing hacker tools

[kenboldt]

Another big fat +1 from me.

PM Harper is a control freak

[lsatenstein]

This man would want to be a dictator. Canada was so so very very wrong to elect his party for leadership. In terms of popular vote, the conservatives did not win a majority. But in terms of ridings, they did. Harper is an image of GWBush. Deny anything that is negative, keep everything possible as secret. Muzzle every public employee. Muzzle his own caucus. I cannot trust the man, based on his public actions. I feel he is not to be trusted.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[Trepidity]

Yes, I think the thing being missed here is not, "can the government sometimes direct when/how its employees should release information to the public", and rather, "is there any reasonable explanation for this particular regulation?"

Not many people object that, say, the ambassador to a country is not allowed to just speak his personal opinion about foreign relations w/o clearing it with the government; and researchers on military projects can't just post some schematics to the internet. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to ask: why should scientific research carried out by the fisheries ministry be similarly restricted?

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[wrook]

Hmmm... You make some good points. I may actually rethink my stance.

Re:Conartist Party Lies

[Davorama]

What a crock of shit. [It stinks.]

It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odor thereof.

Tis the way she goes...

[DemonGenius]

Conservatives get criticized for creating an ungodly mess and Liberals then get criticized for failing to create that mess while pursuing their own personal interests. I probably won't live to see someone come in and clean all of the shit these two parties have created and I'm still at the tender age of 29.

P.S. I'm relatively impartial to any Canadian party, but I will support anyone who is willing to and actually does serve the people of Canada.

Re:Tis the way she goes...

[DemonGenius]

... Liberals then get criticized for failing to create that mess...

Should read "fix that mess" not "create that mess"

Re:Conartist Party Lies

[plalonde2]

It promotes growth and is strong.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[DarthVain]

I would argue that plenty of people in government understand how science works. In fact I would argue that likely a pretty large population of Canada's scientists work for the government in one Ministry or Department.

If your saying that the politicians don't get it, well then you might be onto something...

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[CCarrot]

I've talked to many people about the census, and the only intelligible reason for him screwing around with the census that comes to light is so that there's less quality data available to organizations doing good work with fewer agendas. I've always heard that the quality of StatsCan data was legendary, in part for having excellent continuity and statistical control.

The 'quality' of the census was and is only as good as the quality of the data self-submitted by people, sometimes people that were pissed off at being *forced* to provide very personal information about themselves and their families. Why would you assume, just because they were forced to fill in the blanks under threat of imprisonment or fines, that they would provide accurate information?

No. Stats Canada needs to change their "we must control all moar data moar controlz" model and provide for greater anonymity to the submitter *even in their own records* before I'll voluntarily participate. I definitely see the value in gathering and analyzing the demographic information, but the fact that you had to tie your responses to your own PI (name, contact information) and that of your family was never acceptable in my book. Even if they pinkie swear never to release it...until enough time has passed, that is.

On a side note, I wonder who are Stats Canada's biggest customers? Government/researchers or advertisers? Funny how I can't seem to find that info on their website...
 

Re:Conartist Party Lies

[ginbot462]

I wish the US had a ONE term limit. Then it would never be about getting reelected.

Re:another 1/3 for possessing hacker tools

[anyGould]

Actually, 2/3s sounds pretty close. Remember, he only got 2/5ths of the vote. That makes 3/5s of the population that Harper really doesn't care about.

And to think of it, it's probably even higher when you include the Alberta ridings that are ignored because you could stab little old ladies with blue spears and they'd still vote Conservative.

(I live in Alberta, so I'm allowed to be that sarcastic about our provincial politics. Freaking "dynastys")

So silly...

[btk1137]

They're looking at this all wrong politically, they spent all this money on the study and they got a paper worthy of Science. Money well spent, a very significant part of the problem identified. Got to be someone calling in a favor to slow it down for business reasons, because keeping something secret that's published in Science would be like trying to hide something on the 6 o'clock news.

Canadians Kept in the Dark

[DERoss]

My daughter lives in Canada. To keep current with what is happening where she lives, I read several Canadian newspapers online daily. I went to their Web sites after reading this Slashdot article and could not find a single newspaper article about it. A Yahoo news search turned up only one Canadian item.

I sent my daughter an E-mail about this. Since she was an investigative reporter before becoming an educator, she generally keeps up with all the news. She replied:
"This is the first I've heard of this. Why would they need to black out research on what's harming the salmon stocks? Is it linked to national security?"

I think it's more political security -- Prime Minister Harper staying in office -- than national security.

Re:another 1/3 for possessing hacker tools

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Wow. A long practically foaming at the mouth rant bereft of a single fact - but already scored "4 Insightful"... sigh, welcome to /. I guess.

Re:Notice: "Department of Fisheries ..."

[Have Brain Will Rent]

organizations doing good work with fewer agendas

Gosh that's just so darned Mom and Apple Pie! It's great that we all agree on the worth of each of these organizations and their lack of agendas. Oh wait, maybe we don't, because we don't know who they are, whether their work is "good" or if it is driven by "fewer agendas" because that's just your opinion and not an actual fact.

But actually it seems to have been pretty clear that the idea is less data to organizations with agendas.

You do get that they weren't muzzled right?

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Everyone gets that they weren't muzzled right? That the research was published in publicly accessible respected publications like (iirc) Science? All that happened was that the government doesn't want its employees running off doing PR work without some control by, gosh yes, the people in charge. How heinous! And if you think that wanting to control their employee's participation in PR is unique to one political party then you are either inexperienced/ignorant, or wilfully blind and trying to capitalize on this non-event for your own political purposes.

Hell, forget about muzzling scientists and other employees, every one of the significant federal political parties in Canada - the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives - control what the elected members of their own party are allowed to say to the public.

Prevention of essential public service?

[Vadim Makarov]

Has any scientist in Canada disobeyed the 'official procedure' and talked to the journalists directly about his work? Or do they all follow the procedure, understandingly being very afraid of jeopardizing their positions and research grants prospects in Canada?

It is one of responsibilities of a publicly funded researcher (especially a tenured professor) to talk freely about his findings. This is an essential contribution of the publicly funded science to the society and democracy. I would thus seriously consider ignoring the orders in such situation, even at the risk of getting fired -- okay, it depends on the situation and how much is at stake, but I would at least think about this and probably discuss promptly with the university administration.

As far as I know, in other developed countries (including the one I am currently working in, Norway), there are no barriers in communication between scientists and the press. We answer emails and calls from journalists without asking anyone's permission. There is a public relations office at my university, but its purpose is to help the communication, not to censor.

Am I being too naive, or Canada is really abnormal in this respect?

Re:Conartist Party Lies

[pnewhook]

(quote)ranting nonsense(/quote)

I can take your list and say in all truthfullness that the US (Republican and Conservative)

- putting people in jail, and creating huge mega-prisons (all over the US, the most jailed population in the world)

- forced labour penal chain gangs (in the US south)

- dramatically increased mega-legislation of "law and order" type suppression (the US military spends more on air conditioning than the entire budget for NASA)

- courting big businesses and the Conservative elite (can you spell bailout?)

- accepting money from rich people, and undermining unions (Hitler actually killed off the "socialists" in his "National Socialist" party, after he was finished using them) (some states like Florida actually make unions illegal)

- in favour of censorship (us TV and radio is incredibly censored and there are still book burnings of all things in the US)

- in favour of ubiquitous and warrant-less government surveillance. (can you say Patriot Act and Homeland Security?)

- against homosexuality (outlawed in many states and actively rallied against)

- against marijuana users (Hitler was big time against drug users; read Ceremonial Chemistry by Dr. Thomas Szasz some time) (so is the US)

So based on your arguments, you seem to also be comparing the US to Hitler.