5 ms·

This isn't about seeking the contents of private conversations between scientists and politicians - this is about access to facts learned through tax-funded gov

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.
- HillRat 11y ago
  Only in a despotism is the government strictly equivalent to its individual leaders. Harper was engaging in censorship of the public trust so he could secure private electoral victories, but it was never his government to censor. Of course, there's plenty of time for Trudeau to get this wrong as well; he has his electoral blind spots as well.
  - cperciva 11y ago
    Under the Canadian constitution, the government is the Queen, advised by her Ministers, supported by the civil service. The government is limited in its powers by Parliament and the judiciary -- the government cannot enact new laws or appropriate funds without Parliamentary approval -- but the government is nonetheless controlled by a small number of people.
- napoleond 11y ago
  > the ones whose jobs exist precisely for the purpose of giving advice to the government. That's sort of an odd way to frame it--it makes it sound like these people are only hired to interpret scientific literature for their superiors, or to conduct standard lab tests. On the contrary, many of these scientists conduct basic scientific research. There's no "advisory" value to that work--it is not intended for immediate policy decisions, but rather for the long-term advancement of scientific knowledge. Basic scientific research is a collective effort, and the only possible outcome you could expect when preventing scientists from sharing their research with the greater scientific community is the prevention of scientific progress. Assuming rational actors, I cannot fathom another motive.
  - fche 11y ago
    "... when preventing scientists from sharing their research with the greater scientific community ..." There was no such prevention.
- fche 11y ago
  ... and even that "muzzling" was limited to the capacity in which those scientists were to talk to mass media. They could and did publish any academic papers / attend conferences / etc. They just couldn't speak seemingly on behalf of the government.

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.
HillRat 11y ago
Only in a despotism is the government strictly equivalent to its individual leaders. Harper was engaging in censorship of the public trust so he could secure private electoral victories, but it was never his government to censor. Of course, there's plenty of time for Trudeau to get this wrong as well; he has his electoral blind spots as well.
- cperciva 11y ago
  Under the Canadian constitution, the government is the Queen, advised by her Ministers, supported by the civil service. The government is limited in its powers by Parliament and the judiciary -- the government cannot enact new laws or appropriate funds without Parliamentary approval -- but the government is nonetheless controlled by a small number of people.
napoleond 11y ago
> the ones whose jobs exist precisely for the purpose of giving advice to the government. That's sort of an odd way to frame it--it makes it sound like these people are only hired to interpret scientific literature for their superiors, or to conduct standard lab tests. On the contrary, many of these scientists conduct basic scientific research. There's no "advisory" value to that work--it is not intended for immediate policy decisions, but rather for the long-term advancement of scientific knowledge. Basic scientific research is a collective effort, and the only possible outcome you could expect when preventing scientists from sharing their research with the greater scientific community is the prevention of scientific progress. Assuming rational actors, I cannot fathom another motive.
- fche 11y ago
  "... when preventing scientists from sharing their research with the greater scientific community ..." There was no such prevention.
fche 11y ago
... and even that "muzzling" was limited to the capacity in which those scientists were to talk to mass media. They could and did publish any academic papers / attend conferences / etc. They just couldn't speak seemingly on behalf of the government.