4 ms·

Just wondering, won't this create even more politicization of science?

kardos 11y ago
Well, the previous guy was quite bad for science [1] [2] [3]. Perhaps you can elaborate as to how things could get worse? [1] http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/hundreds-of-world-s-scientists-urge-harper-to-end-funding-cuts-1.2063474 http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/hundreds-of-world-s-scientist... [2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/research-library-s-closure-shows-harper-government-targets-science-at-every-turn-union-says-1.3199761 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/research-library-s-clo... [3] http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/research-cutbacks-by-government-alarm-scientists-1.2490081 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/research-cutbacks-by-gover...
- vlehto 11y ago
  "We give you money, but you spend it like we tell you. Now we need a report that tells this thing X is good." Good for scientists is not necessarily good for science.
- randomname2 11y ago
  Some issues in science are already very politicized, with the left and the right being on different sides of an argument, often with religious fervor. A separate portfolio and government bureaucracy means more money and power to the party in charge in terms of influencing science, which could easily be misused for harrassing scientists and institutions. There is also the implicit threat of cutting off funding for research, effectively silencing any viewpoints that may be against the agenda of the party in charge. Just to illustrate, if in your opinion the "previous guy" was bad for science, imagine him in charge of this bureaucracy, with Lois Lerner-type harrassment and promotion of research that would be offensive to other political parties.
  - icegreentea 11y ago
    The "last guy" did what you described already. The federal government has always had significant control over funding levels of both government scientific agencies, as well as funding for research, just with the responsibility diffused among different ministries and agencies. The Harper government introduced significant cuts in funding from both pools, regardless of the degree of centralization of responsibility.

Well, the previous guy was quite bad for science [1] [2] [3]. Perhaps you can elaborate as to how things could get worse? [1] http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/hundreds-of-world-s-scientists-urge-harper-to-end-funding-cuts-1.2063474 http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/hundreds-of-world-s-scientist... [2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/research-library-s-closure-shows-harper-government-targets-science-at-every-turn-union-says-1.3199761 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/research-library-s-clo... [3] http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/research-cutbacks-by-government-alarm-scientists-1.2490081 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/research-cutbacks-by-gover...

vlehto 11y ago
"We give you money, but you spend it like we tell you. Now we need a report that tells this thing X is good." Good for scientists is not necessarily good for science.
randomname2 11y ago
Some issues in science are already very politicized, with the left and the right being on different sides of an argument, often with religious fervor. A separate portfolio and government bureaucracy means more money and power to the party in charge in terms of influencing science, which could easily be misused for harrassing scientists and institutions. There is also the implicit threat of cutting off funding for research, effectively silencing any viewpoints that may be against the agenda of the party in charge. Just to illustrate, if in your opinion the "previous guy" was bad for science, imagine him in charge of this bureaucracy, with Lois Lerner-type harrassment and promotion of research that would be offensive to other political parties.
- icegreentea 11y ago
  The "last guy" did what you described already. The federal government has always had significant control over funding levels of both government scientific agencies, as well as funding for research, just with the responsibility diffused among different ministries and agencies. The Harper government introduced significant cuts in funding from both pools, regardless of the degree of centralization of responsibility.