The Tories made political decisions here to muzzle scientists to support their political agenda.
PEN Canada concerned by silencing of publicly funded scientists
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Mst bureaucrats do anonymous work for Canadians like give out EI or issue passports. There is no need for them to speak out on issues. Scientists publish papers and have to draw conclusions from their work that can affects public health such as inspections of factories that produce pork or beef. Scientists called for no fishing in the Arctic, that is appropriate. Much of the Arctic isn't even mapped for shipping.
Saw just now on CBC a scientist said she could not discuss a paper she has published. Silly.
Saw just now on CBC a scientist said she could not discuss a paper she has published. Silly.
The Harper administration is not only muzzling scientists, it is manufacturing the message of science where the facts conflict with its ideology. It is also cancelling or cutting research programmes.
The attitude to science is well revealed when the Minister for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, when asked about his views on evolution replied that he "is a Christian and that he should not be asked about his religion" - or words to that effect.
The attitude to science is well revealed when the Minister for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, when asked about his views on evolution replied that he "is a Christian and that he should not be asked about his religion" - or words to that effect.
Yes it is, science operates under different rules than politics or bureaucracy, and suppressing science's findings for political or ideological purposes is a Bad Thing. If scientists are using their findings to criticize public policy, that's one thing, but the findings themselves are quite another, they ought to be freely available.
You don't understand.
Scientist's findings are harmful to public policy. That's why they're being muzzled.
No, I understand fully, the muzzling is to suppress the findings themselves, not just criticism based on them, which can come from anyone who understands them, and that's wrong. I've seen it personally in a small way too, federal public servants (which I'm not one of, I'm glad to say) in general are restrained from using the phrase "global warming," the approved spin phrase is "climate variability."
Really... So I am to assume that this unwritten code that applies only scientists also pervades the private sector? I can hardly wait to read the independent scientists' press releases regarding cures for disease and such.
Lemme guess, this special code of conduct only applies to Canadian scientists ion the public realm, right?
Actually, I was waiting to see your reply, lol.
I'm curious.
Tonington mentioned quite a while ago, that some research data was proprietary. I don't remember what aspect of global warming we were discussing, I believe it may have involved the leaked emails or something to that effect.
If I say please, could you give me the low down on how public v. private research data is managed?
Interesting that you used the word 'proprietary'... Insinuates that there is a form of ownership in terms of the research and results.
Kinda takes you back to the question of the employee/employer dynamic and the potential for employees to release info that does not belong to them.
Kinda takes you back to the question of the employee/employer dynamic and the potential for employees to release info that does not belong to them.
Well that's pretty much how Tonington put it.
Dex being well educated on research and science, I was hoping he'd explain it to me.
What, you guys want an explanation of the scientific enterprise in a paragraph? Dream on. But I'll try. The key point is that you're not really a scientist until the scientific community accepts you as one, which means it has to know what you're doing, and your work has to survive the community's skeptical scrutiny. That's how reputations are made and unmade, how honours and promotions are awarded, and it often strongly affects funding decisions. Certainly there's some research that's proprietary, which will usually be for security reasons, like weapons research, or commercial confidentiality, when a private concern wants to turn a profit on a new product, as in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. And sometimes stuff is held back for a while. Hubble images, for instance, are not released right away, they're input data to somebody's research project, have to give them a chance to do their analyses and submit them for review. More generally though, you do your research, write it up, present it to a refereed journal or at a conference of your peers like the one currently going on in Montreal, and the community judges whether your work is really any good. If it is, your work becomes another increment to the body of knowledge. If it's not, better find another line of work. That's basically how it works, and without the free dissemination of ideas and results and criticism the scientific enterprise cannot function effectively, and in the longer run it cannot survive. It's that free dissemination that the government is interfering with, which stifles both the scientific enterprise in general and the careers of individual scientists.
Yep, and that interference is not based upon sensitive information or protection of the public, but rather upon the gov't's political preferences.
I'm not familiar enough with those anymore to have an opinion, haven't really read any scientific reports from them since I stopped working with a bunch of geologists and geophysicists in mineral exploration, almost 20 years ago now. But I know that 20 years ago they did good work, at least in areas of interest to people doing mineral exploration, I'd be surprised if that's changed. All that comes to mind when I think of them now is that they issued a statement in support of AGW about a decade ago. It seemed a little extreme to me at the time, if the reports I saw were accurate, but a decade more of data gathering and analysis now suggests they were right, though it's still pretty difficult to isolate the anthropogenic impact on global warming from everything else that's going on.
Your talking about publish or perish, and that element is more focused in the academic fields.
Regardless, the reputation of a scientist is the responsibility of that individual - it is not achieved at the expense of the group that pays them to do proprietary work.
Talk to the NRC or any of their provincial counter-parts... The partnership arrangement that may be had with the private sector definitely includes proprietary elements. Everyone brings something of value to the table and in the private sector's case, that value is in preliminary (proprietary) research or capital. The deal that is struck is likely unique to each circumstance, but just because it involves public sector research does not suggest that the info belongs to the public realm, or more specifically, to the scientists that are paid to do the work.