'Time to set scientists free'

[Vanni Fucci]

'Time to set scientists free': prominent journal slams federal government - Winnipeg Free Press

"The journal, Nature, says in an editorial in this week's issue that it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.
It notes that Canada and the United States have undergone role reversals in the past six years, with the U.S. adopting more open practices since the end of George W. Bush's presidency while Canada has been going in the opposite direction.

The editorial says that since taking power in 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has tightened the media protocols applied to federal government scientists and employees.

Nature says policy directives on government communications that have been released through access to information requests have revealed the Harper government has little understanding of the importance of the free flow of scientific knowledge."

Harper says science is bad m'kay...

 

[Cliffy]

But Harper can do no wrong. He has perfect hair!

Harper is an accountant. He only knows the bottom line. Science gets in the way of unrestrained capitalism which is also only interested in the bottom line. Harper's puppet masters do not want reality getting in the way of profits. One guess as to who's ass Harper's lips are surgically attached.

 

[damngrumpy]

Nonsense, the Harper Government has not replaced the scientists that work at several
facilities across the country. This is not setting scientists free, its privatizing the whole
venue. Research money will dry up in many different fields of scientific research that
industry needs. Groups like health care fields and agriculture will be far worse off and
the only things that will benefit are those who provide immediate and massive profits for
big corporations all other fields that require more than expensive pills will be abandoned
for lack of money.
All this government has done is given privatization fancy local names that hide the truth
from the public. It is time to give the scientists the freedom to work with proper funding
and have government let the research people tell the truth about their findings. That of
course has not happened for years.

 

[mentalfloss]

The article seems to be pointing to the 'muzzling' of scientists.

We've heard this a few times already and now Nature is commenting on it.

I don't get why conservatives hate science so much.

 

[captain morgan]

If the environment in which these scientists work is that harsh, they really ought to consider setting up their own facilities and working in an environment that they prefer. They can issue press releases every hour if that is how they wish to operate - it'll be their choice.

Until then, they have to abide by the rules that are already in place

 

[petros]

Non-disclosure contracts are there for a reason.

 

[mentalfloss]

If the environment in which these scientists work is that harsh, they really ought to consider setting up their own facilities and working in an environment that they prefer. They can issue press releases every hour if that is how they wish to operate - it'll be their choice.

Until then, they have to abide by the rules that are already in place

No they don't. They can create public awareness to change the rules.

That's what they're doing.

 

[captain morgan]

Non-disclosure contracts are there for a reason.

Same as in any private lab

 

[mentalfloss]

Same as in any private lab

It's better that we have public and transparent labs though. When factions are public, they are more accountable.

 

[petros]

Same as in any private lab

Exactly. It's the norm.

It's better that we have public and transparent labs though. When factions are public, they are more accountable.

Why? Research data is worth huge bucks. You don't want to just hand it out willy nilly.

 

[mentalfloss]

Why? Research data is worth huge bucks. You don't want to just hand it out willy nilly.

We're talking about accountability, not cost. Why is it always about money with you?

 

[petros]

We're talking about accountability, not cost. Why is it always about money with you?

Everything is about money, I'm just along for the ride and you are too.

 

[mentalfloss]

Everything is about money, I'm just along for the ride and you are too.

Well, no, you can have researchers who perform better than others in their field that are getting paid less. Those researchers are held to high accountability standards unlike those who may be profiting well with a private institution.

So, no. In fact, you are wrong.

 

[petros]

Who cares what they get paid. It's the content of their research. It doesn't need to be public.

 

[mentalfloss]

Who cares what they get paid. It's the content of their research. It doesn't need to be public.

It's not what they get paid, it's the motive of the organization they work for. If it is a private institution then it will be primarily motivated by profit.

You have an acute hypocrisy that you have to deal with petros.

You condemn pharmaceutical companies because of their influence from CEOs and profit margins, yet you also condemn public institutions and want them to be privatized.

That kind of double standard is not logical.

 

[captain morgan]

It's not what they get paid, it's the motive of the organization they work for. If it is a private institution then it will be primarily motivated by profit.

'Profit' and 'value' are interchangeable here. As an example, the National Research Council works independently OR with the private sector in the research and development sector. The value of the research can easily be turned into profit on either basis.

Make no mistake, the research must have value and the value is directly related to profit

 

[mentalfloss]

Make no mistake, the research must have value and the value is directly related to profit

If a corporation makes a profit under the guise of tangible research, then the value was not directly related to profit at all. This is what happens with some drugs that are put out on the market. Granted, I agree that these are exceptions and not the norm, but your statement that value is directly related to profit is something Friedman would say - and we all know that a purely free market is bad.

Let's talk about what's real, not about some capitalism religion you believe in.

 

[taxslave]

If a corporation makes a profit under the guise of tangible research, then the value was not directly related to profit at all. This is what happens with some drugs that are put out on the market. Granted, I agree that these are exceptions and not the norm, but your statement that value is directly related to profit is something Friedman would say - and we all know that a purely free market is bad.

Let's talk about what's real, not about some capitalism religion you believe in.

Whats real is that often times when there is taxpayers money to burn in the form of grants research is often done on totally useless subjects simply because a group of scientists can get paid for it. Now there are places where government financed research is legitimate but this does not necessarily mean it has to be done by government employees.

 

[captain morgan]

If a corporation makes a profit under the guise of tangible research, then the value was not directly related to profit at all.

Under the 'guise of tangible research'?... No one, public or private sector will pursue any research unless they establish that it will have some sort of value.

You have to be more multi-dimensional in your thinking on this. Research into smoking and the health effects generated huge value but not direct profits... The 'profit' component was delivered in society spending less on the healthcare costs paid by the communities... The 'profit' here is in the form of mitigating big costs.

This is what happens with some drugs that are put out on the market. Granted, I agree that these are exceptions and not the norm, but your statement that value is directly related to profit is something Friedman would say - and we all know that a purely free market is bad.

The free market that you suggest is bad is what has provided you with a PC, cell phone, MRI and PET scanners, pharmaceuticals, safer cars, mass transit and 'free healthcare' to name just a few.

Let's talk about what's real, not about some capitalism religion you believe in.

Real like every failed communist state or how European socialism has potentially bankrupted that entire continent?.. Real like that?

 

[mentalfloss]

Whats real is that often times when there is taxpayers money to burn in the form of grants research is often done on totally useless subjects simply because a group of scientists can get paid for it. Now there are places where government financed research is legitimate but this does not necessarily mean it has to be done by government employees.

True.

It depends on the type of research.

You have to be more multi-dimensional in your thinking on this. Research into smoking and the health effects generated huge value but not direct profits... The 'profit' component was delivered in society spending less on the healthcare costs paid by the communities... The 'profit' here is in the form of mitigating big costs.

No, I'm talking about corporate profit specifically. I don't want to take the word and 1984 it like you want to.

The free market that you suggest is bad is what has provided you with a PC, cell phone, MRI and PET scanners, pharmaceuticals, safer cars, mass transit and 'free healthcare' to name just a few.

Wrong again. To this date, the market still isn't completely free. It still has restrictions. A completely free market would be bad. Very bad.

Real like every failed communist state or how European socialism has potentially bankrupted that entire continent?

This thread is about communism and socialism now?

Please. Let's stick to what's real and not ideology thank you very much.