6 ms·

We'll know this only once government scientists speak out against the government.

by fche 11y ago

themartorana 11y ago
I'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 ago
  These 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 ago
  To 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 ago
  They 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 ago
I'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 ago
  This 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 ago
    this 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 ago
Let'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 ago
  There 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 ago
    I 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 ago
Unlikely. 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 ago
  That sounds like true-scottish-canadian norms.

We'll know this only once government scientists speak out against the government.

by fche 11y ago

We'll know this only once government scientists speak out against the government.

I'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 ago
These 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 ago
To 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 ago
They 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 ago

I'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 ago
This 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 ago
  this 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 ago

Let'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 ago
There 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 ago
  I 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 ago

Unlikely. 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 ago
That sounds like true-scottish-canadian norms.