4 ms·

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 h

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
    federal civil service -- the ones whose jobs exist precisely for the purpose of giving advice to the government I'd say their jobs are giving advice to the public. Moreover the Harper party made it difficult for federal civil service scientists to communicate with journalists (aka the fourth estate of government) and the Greens, NDP, Liberals i.e. any other part of the government not in power. The Harper party overreach has no justification in a democratic society and you shouldn't be making excuses for them.
    - cperciva 11y ago
      the Greens, NDP, Liberals i.e. any other part of the government not in power You seem to be getting government and parliament confused here.
      - jolipparcreek 11y ago
        I know the difference which is why I specified not in power. The Greens, NDP, Liberals had elected members in the Canadian system of governance. If you want to be pedantic and argue that government in a parliamentary system refers to the party with the most seats in parliament and in control of the executive branch then go ahead. I find that pointless as you're ignoring the main thrust of my argument.
        cperciva 11y ago
        If you want to be pedantic and argue that government in a parliamentary system refers to the party with the most seats in parliament Not even that. Canada currently has 338 MPs, 184 of whom are members of the Liberal Party; but only 31 of them -- the Prime Minister and 30 other Ministers -- are part of the government.
        zulu365 11y ago
        > the Prime Minister and 30 other Ministers -- are part of the government That is only the executive branch of the government.
threeseed 11y ago
Canada and Australia are actually in similar situations i.e. the removal of a right-wing, polarising leader. When this happens everything is seen as a glimpse into what the new political narrative is. In both countries we are seeing the policies only change marginally but a strong signal being sent about the respect and commitment to science.
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> Nobody complains about legal-advice privilege creating "muzzled lawyers" The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client. The purpose of all the traditional privileges is to allow the client/patient/parishioner to divulge a secret while seeking professional advice without having to worry that it will be published or used against them. In the case of science, the secret the government wants to keep is not anything the government had to be encouraged to give the scientists. It's the result of the scientists' research. And allowing politicians to choose which scientific research is published is catastrophic. It invalidates everything published by government scientists because the political filter biases the published results -- intentionally. It would be better that the research not be done at all than that it be published only if it aligns with the political goals of elected officials.
- lomnakkus 11y ago
  > And allowing politicians to choose which scientific research is published is catastrophic. It invalidates everything published by government scientists because the political filter biases the published results -- intentionally. It would be better that the research not be done at all than that it be published only if it aligns with the political goals of elected officials. Indeed. There are already enough problems with publication bias -- adding further bias is not helpful.
dghughes 11y ago
Harper is religiously far right having moved to a new church when openly gay members were allowed into his old church. Climate change denial came from the top down Harper was pro oil and in denial anything could change the climate. Now maybe we can have a Canadian government not a "Harper government".
msabalau 11y ago
The popular narrative is that what the Harper government did was unusual and unacceptable. People who believe that most Canadian governments (of whatever ideology) will not stoop to willful blindness, probably view the the attitude expressed as uncharitably cynical.
akamaka 11y ago
It's being downvoted because the campaign platform of the new government specifical states that scientists can speak freely. Now that scientists have been publicly told that they can speak freely, what's to stop them? If you suggest that the new government will somehow be muzzling them from the shadows, and you can explain the mechanism of how this might happen, I am all ears.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> 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. It says that they don't feel like their policies and votes are threatened by the truth. That sounds like a "principle" to me.
garyrichardson 11y ago
RE: muzzled scientist issue being overblown. I'm Canadian. I have scientist friends. I can say this was not overblown. Funding was cut. Programs that were decades old were shut down. Data that contradicted the government was buried.
- fche 11y ago
  Funding cuts are off topic to "muzzling".

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
  federal civil service -- the ones whose jobs exist precisely for the purpose of giving advice to the government I'd say their jobs are giving advice to the public. Moreover the Harper party made it difficult for federal civil service scientists to communicate with journalists (aka the fourth estate of government) and the Greens, NDP, Liberals i.e. any other part of the government not in power. The Harper party overreach has no justification in a democratic society and you shouldn't be making excuses for them.
  - cperciva 11y ago
    the Greens, NDP, Liberals i.e. any other part of the government not in power You seem to be getting government and parliament confused here.
    - jolipparcreek 11y ago
      I know the difference which is why I specified not in power. The Greens, NDP, Liberals had elected members in the Canadian system of governance. If you want to be pedantic and argue that government in a parliamentary system refers to the party with the most seats in parliament and in control of the executive branch then go ahead. I find that pointless as you're ignoring the main thrust of my argument.
      - cperciva 11y ago
        If you want to be pedantic and argue that government in a parliamentary system refers to the party with the most seats in parliament Not even that. Canada currently has 338 MPs, 184 of whom are members of the Liberal Party; but only 31 of them -- the Prime Minister and 30 other Ministers -- are part of the government.
        zulu365 11y ago
        > the Prime Minister and 30 other Ministers -- are part of the government That is only the executive branch of the government.

threeseed 11y ago

Canada and Australia are actually in similar situations i.e. the removal of a right-wing, polarising leader. When this happens everything is seen as a glimpse into what the new political narrative is. In both countries we are seeing the policies only change marginally but a strong signal being sent about the respect and commitment to science.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> Nobody complains about legal-advice privilege creating "muzzled lawyers" The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client. The purpose of all the traditional privileges is to allow the client/patient/parishioner to divulge a secret while seeking professional advice without having to worry that it will be published or used against them. In the case of science, the secret the government wants to keep is not anything the government had to be encouraged to give the scientists. It's the result of the scientists' research. And allowing politicians to choose which scientific research is published is catastrophic. It invalidates everything published by government scientists because the political filter biases the published results -- intentionally. It would be better that the research not be done at all than that it be published only if it aligns with the political goals of elected officials.

lomnakkus 11y ago
> And allowing politicians to choose which scientific research is published is catastrophic. It invalidates everything published by government scientists because the political filter biases the published results -- intentionally. It would be better that the research not be done at all than that it be published only if it aligns with the political goals of elected officials. Indeed. There are already enough problems with publication bias -- adding further bias is not helpful.

dghughes 11y ago

Harper is religiously far right having moved to a new church when openly gay members were allowed into his old church. Climate change denial came from the top down Harper was pro oil and in denial anything could change the climate. Now maybe we can have a Canadian government not a "Harper government".

msabalau 11y ago

The popular narrative is that what the Harper government did was unusual and unacceptable. People who believe that most Canadian governments (of whatever ideology) will not stoop to willful blindness, probably view the the attitude expressed as uncharitably cynical.

akamaka 11y ago

It's being downvoted because the campaign platform of the new government specifical states that scientists can speak freely. Now that scientists have been publicly told that they can speak freely, what's to stop them? If you suggest that the new government will somehow be muzzling them from the shadows, and you can explain the mechanism of how this might happen, I am all ears.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

> 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. It says that they don't feel like their policies and votes are threatened by the truth. That sounds like a "principle" to me.

garyrichardson 11y ago

RE: muzzled scientist issue being overblown. I'm Canadian. I have scientist friends. I can say this was not overblown. Funding was cut. Programs that were decades old were shut down. Data that contradicted the government was buried.

fche 11y ago
Funding cuts are off topic to "muzzling".