Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Canadian Government's War On Science

Posted by Soulskill on from the it's-not-real-science-if-it-doesn't-involve-hockey dept.

FuzzNugget writes "A contributor at ScienceBlogs.com has compiled and published a shockingly long list of systematic attacks on scientific research committed by the Canadian government since the conservatives came to power in 2006. This anti-scientific scourge includes muzzling scientists, shutting down research centers, industry deregulation and re-purposing the National Research Council to align with business interests instead of doing real science. It will be another two years before Canadians have the chance to go to the polls, but how much more damage will be done in the meantime?"

19 of 474 comments (clear)

  1. Dang, Canada... by eagee · · Score: 5, Funny

    What are you doing? You were my escape plan all during the Bush years - where am I going to go when the right finally tanks the US?

    1. Re:Dang, Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mind transference experiment. It's the only explanation for how Obama is almost exactly the same as Bush.

    2. Re:Dang, Canada... by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True. He turned out to by a crypto conservative plant, a false flag operative operating under the guise of hope and change. He is right of Ronald Reagan on a lot of issues, much to the absolute horror of the actual liberals in this country.

    3. Re:Dang, Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. But what we're talking about here is science and scientific research.

      I can understand a fiscal conservative's opinion that government has no business funding scientific research - and considering this horseshit, I would think that a liberal might side with that just for the reason of science getting politicized even more.

      But when a government starts meddling with science and research because it pisses off their backers - industry - then we are headed for some serious trouble. The Bible thumpers don't scare me because, although a pain in the ass, they are easily defeated.

      Industry scares me. They have the deep pockets to get their way and it's very hard to fight them.

      Examples of industry screwing science over to get their way:

      Cigarette industry - fought for decades that their products were safe and later, there was no proof that they were dangerous.

      Automakers and every safety and pollution control system demanded. And decades ago, they fought tooth and nail to KEEP lead in gasoline. That's why it tool so many decades to get rid of it: the auto industry bullshitted the US Congress.

      Fossil fuel producers and doing everything they can to misinform the public about global climate change.

      Those are just off of the top of my head.

  2. Excuse me? by mpoulton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A large portion of that list doesn't look anti-science. Business deregulation? Firing regulatory officials for "lack of leadership"? Discontinuing a mandatory census? Rolling back environmental regulations? Withdraw from Kyoto Accord? Changes to fisheries regulations? Procedural changes for public hearings on pipeline work? And so on... These are not "anti-science" changes. They are anti-liberal, anti-environmentalist, and pro-business political moves. Think there might be some political bias by the author of this list?

    --
    I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    1. Re:Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are anti-liberal, anti-environmentalist, and pro-business political moves. Think there might be some political bias by the author of this list?

      Sadly, while they're doing all of those things, they're discrediting the science behind it.

      They make assertions which don't match facts, and then say the scientists who have the facts have an agenda.

      And you wonder why so much of the US fails in a basic understanding of science? It's because the douchebag politicians do all they can to undercut science.

      Maybe if your positions aren't borne out by science, it's you who has a problem with reality? You know, like the drooling trolls who say "Intelligent Design" should be treated as an equally valid theory to Evolution, even though it's anything but.

    2. Re:Excuse me? by Nemyst · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hint: most environmental considerations come from scientific discoveries and conclusions. "Lack of leadership" is an excellent excuse to fire off people that don't align to your political views. Mandatory census is an important tool in many scientific fields to determine the state and evolution of the population. Changes to fishing regulations go against every scientific studies we've ever made. Pipeline work is being swept under the carpet so that the government can help oil producers in Alberta export their stuff more easily without bothering about public opinion or environmental concerns.

      Science isn't just about particle accelerators and battery tech.

    3. Re:Excuse me? by Covalent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You must be a conservative.

      I hate to break it to you, but the Kyoto Accord is based on science, whether you like that science or not. This is exactly the point: you don't like the science, and neither do most conservatives, because it indicates that a BIG business (fossil fuel based energy) is bad. Since those businesses have a fair amount of money, the Kyoto Accord is pretty anti-fossil fuel business.

      Despite that fact, it is still based on valid science.

      --
      Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
    4. Re:Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the rest (like 'environmental' science) are just a political whores at best, where 'truth' is defined by number of paid 'papers', not by soundness of argument or reproducibility of experiments. No wonder it gets discarded on the side of the road now and then.

      No, the groups which do that are mostly shell companies and think tanks paid by large corporations to kick out position papers which support their claims.

      People are doing actual science in many domains, and large corporations and political groups try very hard to say "see, we have science too".

      That's usually a lie -- the tobacco companies claimed for years smoking wasn't harmful when they knew damned well it was.

      There's science, and there's shills. It's important to know which are which. If you can convince the masses that science is just what a bunch of people want you to believe, you can undermine it to the point where you can make any claims you like.

      So go find me some scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, because you can't, since there's absolutely zero science behind it.

    5. Re:Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I clicked one of the blog-troll's links at almost random. It was a hysteria filled column about how the "EVIL Conservatives (who obviously were being lead by the EVEN MORE EVIL Bush family)" were being EVIL by removing an "Environment Canada" logo and text from the weather page. The top-rated 9000 comments were all outrage, but the most recent three explained that the "Environment Canada" web page still exists and that (gasp, shock, horror) this actually helps because the weather page had been the top response when searching for "Environment Canada," and now searching for that term actually gave you what you searched for.

      After reading that, the next link could've had video evidence of their hated PM firing nuclear weapons at baby seals and I still wouldn't care.

    6. Re:Excuse me? by Again · · Score: 5, Informative

      You must be a conservative.

      I hate to break it to you, but the Kyoto Accord is based on science, whether you like that science or not. This is exactly the point: you don't like the science, and neither do most conservatives, because it indicates that a BIG business (fossil fuel based energy) is bad. Since those businesses have a fair amount of money, the Kyoto Accord is pretty anti-fossil fuel business.

      Despite that fact, it is still based on valid science.

      I remember the Kyoto Accord very differently then you do. The Kyoto Accord was signed by the Liberals at the end of a very unpopular Liberal term. The Liberals never made a plan of how to meet the requirements of The Kyoto Accord because it was impossible for Canada to meet it in the specified time frame. Signing it was a recognized political joke at the time.

      Full disclosure: I voted Conservative for that election and Liberal for the one after.

    7. Re:Excuse me? by anagama · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's a very interesting movie about farmed salmon in BC and the ISA virus (an internationally reportable virus like mad cow). http://salmonconfidential.ca/

      Basically, the Canadian government, despite highly reputable testing, continues to deny that there is ISA and other viruses in the farms, muzzles the scientist who published research on the topic, and almost passed a law making it a felony to report on infections in livestock/farmed fish. All the while, native stocks of salmon plummet due to diseases that fill the narrow passageways in which the farms are located. And no, you can't just replace wild salmon with farmed salmon -- unless you're going to truck them out to the forest and dump them because even the trees get fertilized by dead fish that bears leave around after eating the eggs (and then of course there are Orcas and seals to feed etc. etc). The rivers can provide nutrients to an entire ecosystem including people -- farmed salmon destroy that but provide profit for big business. With most fishermen being small time business people -- guess which wins. http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/fw580/pdf/15.%20MDN%20riparian.pdf

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    8. Re:Excuse me? by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Science is a method not an outcome and as such is amoral. "We must reduce carbon emissions in order to reverse global warming", is not a scientific statement.

      You're obviously right. Similarly "you should step off the tracks before that freight train barreling along kills you" is not a scientific statement. However "if you don't step off the tracks before that freight train arrives then you will die" is a scientific statement. Many people think the recommendation to step off the tracks is obviously, if not scientifically, a reasonable recommendation under those circumstances. Some may disagree.

    9. Re:Excuse me? by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure you're seeing a bias by the author as much as a list of actions by the Conservatives (which are generally anti-liberal, anti-environmentalist, and pro-business political moves).

      Firing regulatory officials for "lack of leadership"?

      This head of the Nuclear regulatory agency got fired over controversy that led to an important research reactor (that manufactured important medical isotopes) being shut down for a while over safety issues. The minister eventually fired the head of the agency and the government forced the reactor to restart. Overall most people felt the reactor should keep running (and I'd agree). Either way I'm not sure I'd really call it an attack on science as much as a struggle over agency independence. Looking through the article (from 2008) I found this fun little tidbit

      A ministerial directive on Dec. 10 ordered the CNSC to reopen the site. The agency refused, insisting a backup safety system be installed to prevent the risk of a meltdown during an earthquake or other disaster.

      Too bad she couldn't have found a job in Fukushima.

      Discontinuing a mandatory census?

      Stopping the collection of good scientific data in favour of some fuzzy ideological principals? Since then we've had a few provincial elections where the polls turned out to be completely inaccurate, I wouldn't be surprised if that was related.

      Rolling back environmental regulations? Withdraw from Kyoto Accord? Changes to fisheries regulations?

      Environmental regs are largely suggested by science, as are carbon emission regs and regs to keep fisheries healthy.

      Frankly the message I get from this is they care more about the short term economic impact than the environment, and combined with their other actions in gutting research and muzzling scientists there seems to be an active effort to cripple science so that science can't contradict their policies.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  3. Re:And no one was surprised... by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If there is one thing that politicians all agree on, it's that you should change the facts to match your agenda, not the other way around.

    FTFY

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  4. The big roundup of intellectuals by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The conservatives in power at the federal level in Canada have been figuratively rounding up all the intellectuals, scientists, educators, and scholars who do not toe the line. It is disgraceful and eerily familiar to historians, who BTW are about to undergo a government investigation of how Canadian history is to be taught since the conservatives do not much recognize anything but their own mythology.

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
  5. Re:Science in this case is another special interes by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bingo. Eisenhower warned about the Military-Industrial Complex, but everyone seems to forget his other warning in the same speech about the government-science complex.

    At least 90% of the results I see from government-funded 'science' look to be a total waste of my tax dollars.

    The other 10% form the foundation of our economy. Most of them were unintentional. Which is why anyone who responds with the above just looks like an uninformed fool.

    --
    a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
  6. Re:Hand wring much? by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What BS. Nobody has ever been jailed for failing to fill out the long-form census. It was mandatory and there were potential fines and jailtime in place, but if you go looking, basically nobody ever runs afoul of the laws. The census people just come and talk to you and help you fill out the form.

    That participation is vital. As a result of not having it be mandatory this year, we now have big chunks of data that have to be completely thrown out. Something like 40% of municipalities in Saskatchewan have no relevant data this year. It's criminal. How do you make decisions in a country without data to base it on?

    There's never been a freedom problem with the census. It's a red herring that the Conservatives used to tenuously justify a move so absurd, the head statistician of Statistics Canada felt it was his moral obligation to step down in protest.

    An accurate census is fundamental to any government that's interested in actually governing. Without it, all your decisions are just shots in the dark. You can't set any metrics that determine success, because you don't even know what problems you're supposed to be solving anymore.

  7. Re:And no one was surprised... by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think your fix would be more reasonable if you cited examples of when liberal politicians ignored science to match their agendas.

    Preferably some example where the vast majority of peer-reviewed studies support the opposite side. Like climate change, where 97% of studies conclude that climate change is real. Or evolution. As opposed to some other issue where there is much more support for either side.