Canada's Government Won't Let Its Own Climate Scientists Speak to the Press
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
The direction of those agreements depends on lots of things. Like whose funding to use. Whose project it is. Who provides the study materials, etc.
Simply working with a government scientist does not mean the government owns it all. That's stupid. Nobody would ever work with them if that were the case. We wouldn't. I suspect many in academia wouldn't either.
Your insane, money rules, if you don't get the message how will you afford three more children?
Well if he's doing the work for the government then he's going to have to sign whatever they want, or not do any work for them. Like I said, the context matters a great deal. We don't give away a thing. We pay for services and they sign our agreements.
Lots of universities have project managers overseeing funds, and they wouldn't sign that just because a biologist at Environment Canada contributed to their data collection. That's retarded.
Yes, that's what I said. Take your time and read slower/more carefully dim rodent.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
Then again, for those that feel they are perpeutally entitled to any and everything, that reality is not convenient
You just described the ownership issue.
In the situation that the OP is based upon, the gvt does own this intellectual property and it is not the decision or at the discretion of an employee (researcher/scientist) to release this info.
The government isn't a private company though. It's purpose is not profit. It is supposed to work in the best interests of the people of Canada. If scentists are told to withhold knowledge that would allow Canadians to make better decisions, then the government is not acting in the best interests of Canadians.
Candian are paying for that science. It shouldn't be considered proprietary information for the Conservative Party.
Well, I'll be. Now I'm smarter than I was this morning. Thank you kindly, Cap.
Irrelevant
Are you suggesting that this scientist has the omnipotent ability to unilaterally decide what is in the best interests of each and every Canadian?
Maybe buddy should run for PM and then he can make that decision, eh?
Correct, and that is another reason that this blowhard scientist has no rights to make a decision on 'my' research
Yes, exactly.
In the situation described in the OP, the NDA Petros posted is redundant. The NDA Petros posted comes from government procurement contracts. Employee contracts cover a whole lot more than that NDA does. I found the thread you're referring to, where apparently this find of Petros' first popped up. It's not clear at all that the government owned anything mentioned in that OP. The government was criticizing an academic...not suing him for breach of contract.
I don't think anyone is arguing with whether or not the government can muzzle it's paid employees. The question is, should they? The scientists can't even warn people about toxic red tides fer Ƒucks sakes. That's stupid. There should be protocols in place of course for government employees, but to go all the way up to the top of the management? That's ludicrous.
Yeah. The National research Council has all sorts of IP. I worked at one lab where they had developed an in vitro assay for quantifying protein metabolism. They purified the enzymes and made an assay out of it that they charge for handsomely. Now that same research station is working on biofuel from algae.
NRC?s Intellectual Property (IP) policy - National Research Council Canada
That can change in the blink of an eye
This isn't exclusively about gvt... And yes, they should be allowed to do this as they see fit.... Change the researcher from a biologist to a nuclear physicist and one can see the necessity for CA/NDA compliance
Fine... Is this scientist bonded, insured, etc such that if their actions result in harm, they can compensate for their actions and/or mistakes?
We both know that the answer to that question is 'no'... That said, it's pretty arrogant for this guy to pretend that he knows best especially considering that he can't back up any of his/her mistakes with tangible consideration
Fine, until then assuming it's related to NDA is foolish.
That's too ambiguous for me. I don't think tax payer funded research should be a political tool.
Now don't be obtuse. I clearly said there should be protocols in place. That is what the Senior bureaucrats are for, to guide the sort of policy that makes well defined criteria for governing access to the public. This ad hoc decision process for access to experts is wayyyy too political.
Yes, actually he does know best. That's why we pay him, and that's why journalists want to speak to him. Precisely because he is an expert.
It's highly unlikely you're going to be able to convince me that a senior bureaucrat knows better and more tangibly than the scientist working at the bench. That's a pretty tall order to fill Cap.
It's from the feds.
Then they would be signing your company's NDA if applicable and why you aren't signing one from the feds.
Yeah, that's what I said.
Because it doesn't apply. They don't own the information. It's ours. We can do whatever we want with it. Why would we sign something of theirs that tells us what we can do with our property? They are a third party that we pay. They produce results for us and send us everything. They're no different than any other lab we contract to do work for us.
What we do sign is task orders, that clarify who is responsible for what, and what we are paying for, and expect in return. It's not a disclosure agreement.
You've said nothing new that hasn't already been said.
Does the game change when the data produced has economic value that can alter markets or set national/international policy?
What you see as climate change data can if accurate set the price of rice in China 10 years from now.
Thanks Mentalflaws.I appreciate reds from the SpEds.
Does the game change when the data produced has economic value that can alter markets or set national/international policy?
What you see as climate change data can if accurate set the price of rice in China 10 years from now.
Thanks Mentalflaws.I appreciate reds from the SpEds.
The NDA is only a pert of it, but a very relevant part
The only ones hollering that this is a political tool are the tin-foilers and this researcher
It's only ambiguous if you decide to ignore it.
Your company has taken certain protection(s) to shelter itself from liability for the aforementioned reason(s), but this clown gets a free pass because he believes he knows best?
PS - If he was wrong, inaccurate, etc, who is responsible then?... Gvt?
The policy has already been established... Buddy felt that he knows better, therefore that policy doesn't apply to him.
PS - he still doesn't have any liability insurance, bonds or assets that could offer tangible consideration/compensation if he were wrong
Really?... Says who?.. Does he know the big picture? Is his research something that is parallel or dependent on other info?... Does he even know this or is it a 'best guess' scenario?
.. And no, journalists have no interest in his level of knowledge, it is all about selling ads based on a perceived friction between he and the gvt
This scientist has no bearing, nor any understanding of public policy.
Why do you think it is that academics make such sh*tty politicians that do far more damage than good?
Looks much like the one we had to sign for the French company that designed the new smelter for Kitamat.
f