Government kills independent science body
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Scientists lash Harper government for pulling plug on Experimental Lakes Area
Scientists from Harvard University, the Smithsonian Institute, and other elite research centres are condemning a decision by the Harper government to shut down a world-class freshwater research program.
A program called the Experimental Lakes Area, a region of 58 lakes near Kenora, Ont., that scientists have used for groundbreaking experiments, will be scrapped as part of federal budget cuts.
Those cuts come with 40 layoffs in Winnipeg's regional Fisheries and Oceans Canada office. Many of those who are being laid off are biologists, chemists and other scientists who form the ELA's core.
"I was pretty shocked," said Harvard University aquatic sciences Prof. Elsie Sunderland. "This is one of the foremost research projects and places to do research in the world. To have it shut down is just appalling. It's just embarrassing."
Before moving to Harvard, Sunderland, originally from Nova Scotia, worked for years creating policy at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Research done at the experimental lakes on the effects of mercury on fish and waterways was discussed at the highest levels of the EPA and helped form the basis of new regulations on coal-fired power plant emissions. Those new rules became official in December.
Work on the lakes has also led to continent-wide policy shifts on acid rain, changes to the way hydro dams are built, a ban on phosphorus in detergents and huge advancements in the battle against the green algae that fouls Lake Winnipeg beaches every summer.
Scientists deliberately pollute all or part of a lake to measure the long-term effects on an entire complex ecosystem, allowing a huge breadth of research that could never be done by studying piecemeal samples of mud and water. Then, they let the lake return to its natural state.
This summer, ELA staff and researchers from Trent University were slated to begin a new long-term project on the effects of nanoparticles, an emerging multi-billion-dollar technology, on waterways and fish.
Specifically, scientists were planning to add micro-particles of silver, woven now into socks and underwear to kill bacteria, to a lake to measure the effects on the ecology.
Federal officials say the ELA no longer "aligned with the department's mandate and is not responding to our research priorities." Ottawa hopes a university or the provinces will take over funding the project.
"It makes more sense to allow it to be owned and operated by those who will benefit from this unique research facility," said Erin Filliter, spokeswoman for federal Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield.
But scientists say transferring control of the program and its lakes to a university isn't ideal. Schools aren't in the business of conducting decades-long research. And the liability involved in deliberately contaminating a lake may be too risky and too bureaucratically complicated for a school or non-profit research foundation to take on. Only a government could get away with it, and scientists say, if the ELA ends, there may never be anything like it again in the world.
Manitoba Conservation Minister Gord Mackintosh said Friday he is "profoundly concerned" about the demise of the ELA.
"The ELA has incubated some of the world's greatest research on water and helped create some of the world's leading scientists," said Mackintosh.
On Friday, the province advised the Tories of its opposition to the decision to kill the ELA. And Mackintosh said discussions have already begun with Ontario on how the provinces might work together to save the program, as well as with Canadian and international scientists who have expressed outrage at the decision.
"I was stunned," said Cynthia Gilmour, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Maryland.
"The ELA has contributed to environmental policy for 40 years, and the long-term records alone on temperature and ice cover are absolutely invaluable."
Gilmour has long been part of the ELA's mercury project. A photo of the ELA lake where mercury research is underway appears on the front page of Gilmour's departmental website.
David Krabbenhoft, a Wisconsin-based geochemist with the United States Geological Survey, who also worked for years on the mercury project, said the research was specifically designed to answer a vexing policy question -- what real good would it do to crack down on mercury emissions when the Earth's soil and water are already contaminated with centuries of mercury buildup?
By deliberately adding mercury to a lake and to the surrounding watershed and watching the effects for a decade, researchers found that, in fact, curtailing emissions does a world of good. Historical mercury contamination is often of the 'retired' variety and waterways recover surprisingly fast if mercury is removed as a contaminant.
"No other study anywhere in the world could have made that observation," said Krabbenhoft. "Frankly, I am disappointed at the lost opportunity to continue these scientific advancements."
Scientists lash Harper government for pulling plug on Experimental Lakes Area - Winnipeg Free Press
Scientists from Harvard University, the Smithsonian Institute, and other elite research centres are condemning a decision by the Harper government to shut down a world-class freshwater research program.
A program called the Experimental Lakes Area, a region of 58 lakes near Kenora, Ont., that scientists have used for groundbreaking experiments, will be scrapped as part of federal budget cuts.
Those cuts come with 40 layoffs in Winnipeg's regional Fisheries and Oceans Canada office. Many of those who are being laid off are biologists, chemists and other scientists who form the ELA's core.
"I was pretty shocked," said Harvard University aquatic sciences Prof. Elsie Sunderland. "This is one of the foremost research projects and places to do research in the world. To have it shut down is just appalling. It's just embarrassing."
Before moving to Harvard, Sunderland, originally from Nova Scotia, worked for years creating policy at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Research done at the experimental lakes on the effects of mercury on fish and waterways was discussed at the highest levels of the EPA and helped form the basis of new regulations on coal-fired power plant emissions. Those new rules became official in December.
Work on the lakes has also led to continent-wide policy shifts on acid rain, changes to the way hydro dams are built, a ban on phosphorus in detergents and huge advancements in the battle against the green algae that fouls Lake Winnipeg beaches every summer.
Scientists deliberately pollute all or part of a lake to measure the long-term effects on an entire complex ecosystem, allowing a huge breadth of research that could never be done by studying piecemeal samples of mud and water. Then, they let the lake return to its natural state.
This summer, ELA staff and researchers from Trent University were slated to begin a new long-term project on the effects of nanoparticles, an emerging multi-billion-dollar technology, on waterways and fish.
Specifically, scientists were planning to add micro-particles of silver, woven now into socks and underwear to kill bacteria, to a lake to measure the effects on the ecology.
Federal officials say the ELA no longer "aligned with the department's mandate and is not responding to our research priorities." Ottawa hopes a university or the provinces will take over funding the project.
"It makes more sense to allow it to be owned and operated by those who will benefit from this unique research facility," said Erin Filliter, spokeswoman for federal Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield.
But scientists say transferring control of the program and its lakes to a university isn't ideal. Schools aren't in the business of conducting decades-long research. And the liability involved in deliberately contaminating a lake may be too risky and too bureaucratically complicated for a school or non-profit research foundation to take on. Only a government could get away with it, and scientists say, if the ELA ends, there may never be anything like it again in the world.
Manitoba Conservation Minister Gord Mackintosh said Friday he is "profoundly concerned" about the demise of the ELA.
"The ELA has incubated some of the world's greatest research on water and helped create some of the world's leading scientists," said Mackintosh.
On Friday, the province advised the Tories of its opposition to the decision to kill the ELA. And Mackintosh said discussions have already begun with Ontario on how the provinces might work together to save the program, as well as with Canadian and international scientists who have expressed outrage at the decision.
"I was stunned," said Cynthia Gilmour, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Maryland.
"The ELA has contributed to environmental policy for 40 years, and the long-term records alone on temperature and ice cover are absolutely invaluable."
Gilmour has long been part of the ELA's mercury project. A photo of the ELA lake where mercury research is underway appears on the front page of Gilmour's departmental website.
David Krabbenhoft, a Wisconsin-based geochemist with the United States Geological Survey, who also worked for years on the mercury project, said the research was specifically designed to answer a vexing policy question -- what real good would it do to crack down on mercury emissions when the Earth's soil and water are already contaminated with centuries of mercury buildup?
By deliberately adding mercury to a lake and to the surrounding watershed and watching the effects for a decade, researchers found that, in fact, curtailing emissions does a world of good. Historical mercury contamination is often of the 'retired' variety and waterways recover surprisingly fast if mercury is removed as a contaminant.
"No other study anywhere in the world could have made that observation," said Krabbenhoft. "Frankly, I am disappointed at the lost opportunity to continue these scientific advancements."
Scientists lash Harper government for pulling plug on Experimental Lakes Area - Winnipeg Free Press
Why wouldn't they?.. Only Mulcair and his merry band of truthers believe in dutch disease and boogeymen hidden under beds.
Harvard has ultra deep pockets. Instead of b*tching, these ivy league scientists should lobby their school and alumni to foot the bill.... This research is extremely important after all.
He was busy composing fallacious and sensationalist thread titles about family violence on the prairies
Interesting, most folks here find your posts (and especially the OPs) partisan, vacuous and lacking any substance.
Funny how that works, eh?
Funny... Really.
You've spent the last week getting holes shot through each one of your arguments.
You've spent the last week getting holes shot through each one of your arguments.
What would the point be to continuing researching unscrubbed emssions Vs. scrubbed emissions when all the power stations, industry and smelters are now scrubbed and were monitored and documented as clean by the now useless research facility?
This sets some kind of record for the most "vacuous" post.
Did any of you read the article? I id when it first came out but did not post it because it would have been piling on and more than your little minds could cope with.
Your sycophantic behavior doesn't need to be openly exposed.
We're all, already well aware of it.
That's only how you see it, because you ignore the multitude of times you and your new buddy get your silly shilling and lies exposed.
No, you hold that record.
Yep.
The fact that I think killing the ELA is wrong, aside. Your little mind hasn't been able to cope with your own contradictions, lack of evidence, and over all below par level of discussion. But hey, you and Fuzzy have this mutual mental masturbation thing going on, so you have that going for you.
Maybe you should expand your own little mind, before you go talking about others.
Last edited:
No surprise there. You've already proven you are blind to anything that proves you wrong.
No worries though, like my name sake, I am relentless and will continue to point out your lies, contradictions, cowardice and childish commentary, as I have so far, whenever I see it.
There's a large amount of irony when this is viewed within the context of the government's planned changes to the Fisheries Act, and the environmental assessment regulations.
Add it to the science-dismissing résumé this government is writing. Apparently water management isn't a priority issue...less information is better. That's the Conservative mantra these days.
I'm not sure it less information, as apposed to the possibility they think they have a mandate to cut cost/corners, with science being a mandated target.