Slashdot Mirror


Muzzled Canadian Scientists Can Now Speak Freely With Public (thestar.com)

Layzej writes: Over the last 10 years, policies were put in place to prevent Canadian scientists from freely discussing taxpayer-funded science with the public. "media relations contacts" were enlisted to monitor and record interactions with the press. Interviews and often the questions to be asked were vetted ahead of time, and responses given by scientists frequently monitored or prohibited. Nature, one of the world's top science journals, called the policy a "Byzantine approach to the press, prioritizing message control and showing little understanding of the importance of the free flow of scientific knowledge."

The new government in Canada is lifting these restrictions. Scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were told Thursday they can now speak to the media. In a statement on Friday afternoon, Navdeep Bains, Canada's new minister of innovation, science and economic development said "Our government values science and will treat scientists with respect. This is why government scientists and experts will be able to speak freely about their work to the media and the public."

10 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Deja vu by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Remember those old cold war films where a KGB agent who accompanied seemingly everyone to make certain they toed the line?

    Here in the frozen Tundra was a real life example.

    Scientists must really be on to something if they aren't allowed to talk about it.

    Oh... Canada.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re: Deja vu by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you think muzzling scientists is a good idea? Please explain why.

    2. Re: Deja vu by dinfinity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you've made a reasonable argument in a reasonable tone

      He didn't. His 'reasonable argument' consisted of ad hominems ('their leader is politically young'), general poisoning the well tactics ('his father is bad, thus he must be bad'), FUD and generally baseless statements ('civil liberties are walking dead', 'mark my words' and pretty much everything else in the post).
      It adds nothing of substance to the discussion and does so in an alarmist and offensive way. It deserves a solid -1.

      If you disagree, please point out the well-reasoned bits I've overlooked. Either that or accept that you were ever so gently sucking his dick (I take it you have no issue with this 'reasonable tone').

    3. Re: Deja vu by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, here's the thing. Canada had the FLQ crisis, and yes, Trudeau called out the military.

      But you know what he did when the crisis was over? He sent the military back to base. No USAPATRIOT act, no Homeland Security, no Transportation Safety Authority, no profiling of Quebecois, no 'terrorist threat level' colour coded chart, nothing. The problem got sorted out, and we, as a country, moved on.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  2. Scientists and media both happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only were scientists muzzled, the media wasn't allowed to question the government either. Any kind of press was carefully preplanned, scripted and designed with the best interests of the Conservative party in mind.

    I strongly disagree with the Conservative Party of Canada. Don't forget, these aren't the "Progressive Conservatives" that won votes on policy, these are the hard right Reformers who campaign on fear and divisiveness.

    1. Re:Scientists and media both happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That sounds suspiciously like the beginnings of a totalitarian regime. Probably why the liberals got a 'surprise' win ... I think Conservatives assume all other people are as stupid as they are. I'm in the US, but once I realized how conservatives here reject solid scientific conclusions based on hard evidence of many things, even when the logic is undeniable (to a rational person) ... I realized how irrational they really are. I'll never vote for another one as long as I live. This covers a myriad of topics, but I use Creationism as my litmus test. Anyone that believes the earth was literally created in 6 days a few thousand years ago is not mentally equipped to be making policies or laws that will affect me.

  3. As a Canadian I must say.... by substance2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... it was long overdue. I'm not a fan of the Liberals but this is a good 1st step in the right direction.
    Thank you must also be given to the voters who finally were able to rally and kick out the Conservatives.
    Too often we do not feel our votes make a difference but it did make one here.
    Now the only question to us is, how far will these changes go? We'll see over time.

  4. Forcing philosophy through example... by RyanFenton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Government doesn't work - it CAN'T WORK!"

    "What about all those countries where it mostly does and, um, all of human history, eh?"

    "Oh really? Sheesh! Listen - I'll just do a little governing here, and governing there - and BAM - doesn't work anymore. See - governing ruins everything!"

    "Doesn't that just mean YOU ruin everything?"

    "Wait - wait - I'll prove it some more. Give me more time and I'll REALLY prove it!"

  5. One degree of separation by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A friend of my wife was personally effected by all of this. She researches epidemics and was going to present a paper [the details of which I will not specify]. However, all appearances at conferences for any reason had to be cleared by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). As there was an election taking place, the PMO couldn't be bothered reviewing anything, they were too busy with important stuff (you know, not epidemics). So she didn't get to go.

    I can't imagine a more dystopian fiction. At least in 1984 they had a reason to spy on everyone, it was part of their basic philosophy. But in this case, the only reason for any of this was Harper's deathly fear of bad press. So everyone had to follow the Party Line, including people who's only affiliation with the party was getting funding from the government.

    And, in the end, *that* was what led to their downfall. The constant repression of information and dissent, especially within his own party, was eventually too much for anyone to take. The mechanism they put in place to protect the PM from the planet was ultimately the very device that destroyed them.

    This is not a "conservative" problem. Conservatives have been excellent communicators overall. Hell, Churchill *lived* for the debate, and I strongly suspect he deliberately let people talk about anything just so he could off a clever quip in response. This was an anomaly. Let's hope it does not happen again.

    1. Re:One degree of separation by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not a conservative thing, it is an authoritarian thing. Authoritarians can show up under any parties banner though in democracies they do seem to be on the right side of the spectrum as often as not.
      Harper was such an authoritarian that he didn't even let his own party members talk so we had an election where the Conservative candidate wouldn't even show up to town hall type all candidate meetings.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism