So what if it is a blog? Follow the links the blogger makes to news agencies if you don't like reading a blog. Yes his complaint is biased, nobodies is without a bias. I have a bias too. I happen to think that positions on the Board at NSERC should be filled by scientists familiar with the process, or administrators with some background directing science funding. I don't think it should be given to folks who deny science. There is a wide gulf between scientific disagreement and science denial.
Bloggers are the same as us, passionate and prone to hyperbole. As is your blogger.
It's kind of like this: "You don't need to be an anti-Semite to be anti-Israel, it just so happens though that you're both."
:lol:
NSERC doesn't formulate government policy, they follow it. They do so by giving grants to researchers.
I know that, and research leads to papers and papers lead to policy. Hence why it makes perfect sense that they have a balanced view.
The title of the thread is manipulating science. A science denier...influencing where science funds are spent...I think it's wrong.
And you suddenly figured out the Gov't does this, on Harpo's watch? I see. :roll:
I don't happen to think that any appointee with their head in the sand over any particular issue germane to the role they will fill is a good idea. He's Harper's campaign manager... I don't think science requires anymore politicization. It requires the opposite.
Perspectives.
Some restrictions? What kind of restrictions? You think it's a good idea for bureaucrats to proof read what their scientists are answering to direct media questions? Again, I refer you to the thread title.
That is manipulation. I wonder if they needed to hire new staffers to do the proof reading...
:roll:...
And as we've seen with both the GW myth and the 911 C/T's, scientists seem to seep from the woodwork. And not everything they utter should be put forth under the heading of government agaency.
Not kidding. Do you think they take that oath literally?
Ummm, ya.
To do no harm. Those Doctors are involved in harm reduction, and treating the addicts for diseases they carry. Medical ethics is not constrained by some ancient rite of passage...
Ummm, allowing and giving refuge to an addict to poison themselves, is a slap in the face to the Oath.
The drug is only deadly if they overdose, which thus far not a single client has died from. I have been given morphine for pain in a hospital, some of the Insite clients are there for that addiction.
:roll:...The drug is poison, period.
Would you like to start a list of other drugs given by medical professionals which are deadly, if the dosing is wrong? There would be no such thing as an anesthesiologist if that were the case.
Why? Would it change your mind? I doubt that. Not to mention those drugs are given to promote healing, not get them high...:roll:
No, not really. For the logic to that comment, I'll refer you back to the beginning of the thread:
I cannot agree with the submission that an addict must feed his addiction in an unsafe environment when a safe environment that may lead to rehabilitation is the alternative.
Again, may doesn't cut it.
Funny, I can access it just fine.
Didn't work for me.
Ad Hominem. I don't care who appoints anybody. I just care that they are appropriate.
And who said he was appropriate? A different gov't. Your using your ideolohy and your perspectives here. Not reality.
If I take over managing a dept or business from someone that was fired, I get rid of his top staff. Their loyalties were with him, not me. I'm surprised it took this long to ditch him.
Proof that he was loyal to Martin? He was President of the National Research Council for ten years prior to that, amongst a stellar career in chemistry.
So a chemist is the best man to give the PM advice on GW? :roll: Then see last reply again.
Ministries to advise him...yeah, like more revenue to create a bigger bureaucracy.
You should like that, leaning a little more to the left, bigger gov't and more nanny-ism is sort of your thing.
Ministries,
And every single one of those agencies would jump at the chance to advise the government to make their budget larger...
:roll:
A Science Advisor would be an impartial person, who could raise skepticism of each of those Department's claims over new research. Do you not think there is a chance, that any one of those department's might overplay their hand? Like Maybe DFO with aquaculture research, AGRI-FOOD with GMO research?
Actually no, given where GMF's stands in Canada, I think between them and the MoH, they did a bang up job.
Most modern nations have science advisors, and there is a good reason for them. They are not at all a redundant position.
I really have no dispute with having one, just the right one.
Yeah, I kind of mentioned that a few times above.
I didn't believe you.
How about your cure for the addiciton slight? That is definitely going to require a growth of Government.
Not really, an increase in purchaces from Winchester maybe, but we could do it without more gov't.
Don't you find this the slightest bit ironic or hypocritical?
Nope.
You have hung onto many of my words, but I can't possibly agree with the words of other writers without it being troubling?
Because your words were based on facts, you provided facts, not OP/ED pieces from bloggers and Colomnists.
I happen to agree with the material I posted here, as you have of stuff I posted in a similar context and format to op-eds or blogs... I think Harper is using every option available to suppress science that clashes with his ideology, or manipulate it where he can. In fact, this is supported by his own hypocrisy. He knows that the climate change issue isn't polling on his side. It hasn't for some time here in Canada. So he talks out one side of his mouth, making nice platitudes, but then gives positions to people who would do their best to see anything related to climate change molded to fit a pro-industry bent. Not at all in the interests of the guiding principles of
NSERC, or of the
CFI.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. Because from where I sit, this seems more an attack on a gov't you don't like, moreso then anything else.
Just because I agree, doesn't mean I'm using someone else's opinion to formulate my own.
I see differing perspectives.
I think the problem is to define the problem being solved.
Your perspective must be that the drug use is not the problem, because you are not proposing anything to reduce or stop that. Others think that the drug use is the problem, and want to aim at that.
Bingo.
Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous both have many members which have successfully kicked their habits, or at least remained drug free over the long term.
When was the last time you saw the host at an AA meeting handing out shot glasses, or coupons to the LCBO?
:roll:
NA and AA aren't "experimental". These programs have a proven track record of success.
And they do not promote safe consumption, they promote no consumption...:roll:
AA has a much lower success rate than they would have you believe.
I agree. I failed twice, before I made it through. And I still fall once in a while.
AA and NA acknowledge they can't help everyone. People have to go through a process and many people fail.
But these organizations have helped literally millions of people. I know people personally who quit their addictions thanks in part to the support they got from AA and NA.
Yep, and they've helped through abstinance, not placation and enabling.
Ok. Now all you have to do is think about the demographics. When the boomers reach seniority the powers that be think it'll be the first time in history that seniors will outnumber kids. Old people need healthcare a lot more than the rest.
