World's scientists call on Stephen Harper to restore science funding, freedom
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
No my basis for criticizing Harper is that either you didn't get what you voted for or I don't agree with a policy decision.
You don't agree with a policy decision of Harper's?
Why, why. . . you dirty, lousy, commie rat-pig! How dare you disagree with His PMishness, the Lord PM of Imperial Canuckistan?
Nor is the gvt intended to be a bottomless pit of entitlement for a select few.
No it doesn't. If it's published, it's not confidential. It doen't matter who paid for it once it's published and anyone can see it. The example I gave of Kristi Miller is a prime example. A big paper published on something non-commercial, and lots of media were interested at the time due to the very poor return of Fraser River sockeye. It still had to go through the government channels to be published in the first place. Now, the contents of that paper are out there, anyone can see it if they want. But the government stopped her from speaking to the public. There is no confidentiality issues, yet they stopped her anyways. That is why this blather about NDA is a red herring. You can read the article yourself.
Preventing the scientist from communicating what the results mean, does nothing except keep people ignorant. That is the result. You know what it's like out there with salmon, keeping the scientist from explaining the results played into the hands of the activists who will stop just about any development that means jobs. What do you think of that?
Absolutely, if it's something tax payers can make a buck off of, don't publish it until the patent papers are filed. But to insinuate as some always do on this forum that is what is happening right now is plainly ignorant. That is not what is going on. If it was about confidentiality, I wouldn't be able to give you this url to the study:
http://people.landfood.ubc.ca/anthony.farrell/pubs/p310-Miller_et_al_2011.pdf
Ms. Miller required approval from her employer to publish her paper to begin with, meaning that she was in fact bound by some form of agreement.
In all likelihood, she (probably) required additional permissions in order to act as spokesperson on that subject despite she being the researcher and/or primary author.
Fact is, the NDA is not a red herring, it is the core of the issue
In all likelihood, she (probably) required additional permissions in order to act as spokesperson on that subject despite she being the researcher and/or primary author.
Fact is, the NDA is not a red herring, it is the core of the issue
Here's a good example. A tank car full of a toxic chemcial goes into a river. Early reports indicate that the tank car has not ruptured. the gummint man on scene is given press lines to that effect. The gummint man then learns that the tank car has indeed cracked open and released the toxic chemical. Just then CBC news shows up. What does the gummint guy on scene say?
(a) the tank car has not ruptured
(b) the tank car has ruptured
(c) no comment
(d) other?
(a) the tank car has not ruptured
(b) the tank car has ruptured
(c) no comment
(d) other?
Does the gubmint man know this for certain?
If so, the first duty is to call their support group and organize a response, not waste time with the CBC.
.... Besides, the CBC is far too busy fawning over Trudeau to mobilize that quickly
If so, the first duty is to call their support group and organize a response, not waste time with the CBC.
.... Besides, the CBC is far too busy fawning over Trudeau to mobilize that quickly
It sure as sh-t is. Evil Canada LLC is a registered corporation on the SEC.
Mailing Address
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
140 O'CONNOR STREET
OTTAWA, ONTARIO Z4 K1A 0G5
Business Address
CANADIAN EMBASSY
501 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20001
613-947-2353
CANADA CIK#: 0000230098 (see all company filings)
SIC: 8888 - FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0331
(Assistant Director Office: 99)
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-...00230098&owner=exclude&count=40&hidefilings=0
You're repeating what I already said. I'm not disputing that employees have agreements with their employers. I have one. I'm not disputing that scientists have to go through channels to publish. I do too. I'm disputing that this example, and many others, are about protecting information. I work for an industry where protecting information is paramount. The first rule is I don't talk about it. The second rule is I don't talk about it. So when someone is saying something is about protecting information, when it's clearly not the case, I have a pretty good eye for what that looks like. If I can read the investigation from my computer at home, it's not information that has been deemed worthy of protecting. If I can go to a library, pull it off a shelf, and read all about it, it's not information deemed worthy of protecting.
The confidentiality of that information was protected by a non-disclosure agreement between Miller and DFO. When it was published, the protection was nullified. They already gave her permission to communicate the work. Therefore referring to an agreement which is intended to control the flow of information, to keep things confidential, is moot. The government has no control over that information once the paper is published, and anyone can do whatever they like with it.
The government is only looking to protect their CPC message. That, is partisan. If you can't see that, well that's kinda troubling. If you can, then it's really ironic.
