6 ms·
Canada's Muzzled Scientists Can Speak Freely Again
- fche 11y agoWe'll know this only once government scientists speak out against the government.
- themartorana 11y agoI'm hoping they speak out about being muzzled. Edit: "It’s the first time in nearly a decade I’ve been able to speak with a Canadian government scientist directly, on the telephone, without spending days or weeks clearing the request through a media officer and submitting a list of questions for editing and approval." I realize the ramifications were probably bad, but I'm surprised at least one or two didn't ignore or actively disobey their government overlords... Or did they and I just didn't hear about it?
- toyg 11y agoThese people are not whistleblowers, they are not going to reveal anything you don't already know. Their value for journalists is in using them as confirmation / official data points. If they cannot speak in that role, there is little point in looking them up.
- pheroden 11y agoTo what end? To alert everyone that there is a serious vial infection running amok in the pacific salmon? You've lost your job, and any way of helping with the problems (and this isn't software development, there are probably 3-4 positions available outside government in the county if you want to keep doing the same line of work), all so it gets buried because most people don't care about pacific salmon populations?
- edkennedy 11y agoThey have already started coming forward: http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/unmuzzled-scientist-facebook-mother-1.3309303 http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/unmuzzled-scientist-facebook... Including this "rock snot" scientist: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.3312388/muzzled-rock-snot-scientist-is-now-free-to-speak-with-us-1.3312398 http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-ed...
- cperciva 11y agoI'm not sure why this is being downvoted, beyond the fact that it challenges the popular narrative. The Harper government didn't muzzle scientists because it had an inate hatred of scientists; it muzzled scientists because it was afraid of what they would say and the potential for lost votes. Canada's new government doesn't have that fear, so they have no reason to muzzle government scientists -- but that doesn't say anything about their principles. A commitment to openness is only tested when there is something you want to avoid having said. (Incidentally, I think the "muzzled scientists" issue is somewhat overblown. Nobody complains about legal-advice privilege creating "muzzled lawyers", and exactly the same rationale applies to government scientists: If governments avoid consulting scientists because they're worried about the contents of their consultations becoming public, we're all worse off for it. This isn't to say that I think government scientists should be completely muzzled, mind you; but I think there's a reasonable middle ground between "completely open" and "completely muzzled" which nonetheless allows for governments to seek confidential advice from the scientists they employ.)
- themartorana 11y agoThis isn't about seeking the contents of private conversations between scientists and politicians - this is about access to facts learned through tax-funded government research, and the "muzzling" of scientists in order to promote "message" over facts (and indeed, to promote falsehoods where facts are inconvenient).
- cperciva 11y agothis is about access to facts learned through tax-funded government research It's rather more narrow than that. University professors were never muzzled, even if all of their research funding came via federal granting agencies. The muzzling of scientists was limited to government scientists, i.e., those belonging to the federal civil service -- the ones whose jobs exist precisely for the purpose of giving advice to the government.
- jolipparcreek 11y ago
- threeseed 11y agoLet's be honest this day isn't going to come or if it does no one is going to care. The only scientific issue that has such a strong political element is climate change. And given that the new government in Canada is left wing and pro environment I can't imagine their being much (if any) dissension. This was the primary reason the scientists were muzzled after all. All the other scientific issues from the lay person/media perspective simply aren't that interesting.
- yummyfajitas 11y agoThere are a variety of scientific issues with political elements. For example, evolution. Not the relatively uncontroversial evolution from (common ancestor) -> {humans, apes}, but evolution within humans after this point. See, e.g. James Watson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Provocative_comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Provocative_comme... Or economics. Consider this incident in the US: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/255726-dem-economists-attack-warren-over-brookings-firing http://thehill.com/policy/finance/255726-dem-economists-atta... The only real attacks on science that get coverage are the ones attacking environmentalism or pre-human evolution. But science does (or at least should) influence politics in a lot more places.
- pervycreeper 11y agoI would go further and say that any scientific topic which has any controversy is "political" by definition. Furthermore, the political dogmas that are held by laypeople almost universally depend on empirical or scientific facts which have not been established or have the imminent potential to be overturned. Political bias has an effect on what research gets funded and/or published, the size of which is correlated to the "softness" of the discipline.
- 542458 11y ago> The only scientific issue that has such a strong political element is climate change. Economic policy is hotly debated in both economic science and government. Same to immigration policy. Even statistics has it's controversial bits. Anthropologists also periodically produce some controversial nuggets. Also, let's not forget that many scientists won't hesitate to give their opinion on whatever is asked of them!
- graeme 11y agoUnlikely. The last ten years were a significant departure from Canadian norms. It seems reasonable to assume we're returning to those norms, based on what we've heard so far.
- fche 11y agoThat sounds like true-scottish-canadian norms.
- shaftoe 11y agoDoes Canada have no protections for freedom of speech? As an American, the idea of muzzling a scientist is strange. I had thought Canada was more free than this.
- forgetsusername 11y ago>As an American, the idea of muzzling a scientist is strange. I had thought Canada was more free than this. It isn't about law, it's (bad) policy and politics. And to think that similar circumstances aren't occurring in America is naive.
- ovis 11y agoEven in America there are restrictions about what federal employees may say to the media. Freedom of speech is different when you are representing an employer, although the restrictions on Canadian scientists were egregious.
- pessimizer 11y ago> Even in America there are restrictions about what federal employees may say to the media. Not outside of the military except in the case of classified documents or the identities of covert agents. It's not even illegal for non-government employees to publish classified documents, as far as I know.
- hackuser 11y ago>> Even in America there are restrictions about what federal employees may say to the media. > Not outside of the military except in the case of classified documents or the identities of covert agents I'm pretty sure that's wrong. I clearly remember the Bush administration restricting government scientists (and other employees) from talking to the media, requiring all communications to be approved by political appointees in their departments. The scientists do have freedom of speech like other Americans, if that's what you mean, but that freedom doesn't protect your job; you can be fired for what you say, just not imprisoned or forced not to say it. It also doesn't protect you if you disclose your employers secrets that are protected by NDAs and similar agreements. For example (and speaking very generally), if a former Apple employee revealed details of some secret Apple tech protected by NDA, I'm almost certain the employee could be sued for damages.
- yummyfajitas 11y agoThis "muzzled scientists" story is a bit overblown. I'm also a muzzled scientist - $LAWYER hired me to do some statistics on $FINANCE_THING and search for $LAWBREAKING. One of the conditions of my employment is that everything I did is legally privileged and I can't say anything beyond what is contained in this post. I was a scientific adviser to $LAWYER, and my job was strictly to help him, his client, and only them understand things better. In much the same way, certain scientists employed directly by political agencies were held to some nondisclosure rules. I'm not sure I know why this is a story - is there some moral principle that all scientists should disclose everything and you can't hire them for confidential work?
- tobtoh 11y agoBy political agencies, do you mean government agencies funded by the taxpayer?
- yummyfajitas 11y agoYes, government agencies funded by the taxpayer, with scientists directly employed to work for them. In much the same way, I wouldn't expect a person working for the DEA to be allowed to publicly say "legalize it", and I wouldn't be particularly outraged if in fact that is banned. I use this term to contrast to, e.g., university researchers receiving an NSF (or Canadian equivalent) grant and (in name, at least) given political independence.
- rodgerd 11y agoSo you don't mean scientists, you mean whores who pad out the opinion of their employer. No wonder you find Harper's policies unobjectionable.
- 542458 11y ago> is there some moral principle that all scientists should disclose everything and you can't hire them for confidential work? I think the argument is that released scientific knowledge is generally in the public's interest, and since the research is in fact funded by the public, government scientists should be allowed to release whatever they want. The government is a public institution, so some feel that "confidential government research" should be restricted to very limited things. That said, I do agree that it is all a bit overblown.
- tosseraccount 11y agoWhat employee can't speak freely?