# Science muzzled by Harper's government



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

In a move that surprises me because Harper is usually not so ham-handed in his attacks on science, the conservatives have further tightened the restrictions on scientists communications with the media.

I've got some comments on this, but I've got to run... so I'll check back to see what people think about this later.



> "There is no question that there is an orchestrated campaign at the federal level to make sure that their scientists can't communicate to the public about what they do," says Weaver, adding that the crackdown is seriously undermining morale in federal labs. "Science is about generating new knowledge and communicating it to others."
> 
> Read more: Tightened muzzle on scientists is 'Orwellian'


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

another to add to Harper's follies..


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

You can't talk with the media, it doesn't look like they're stopping you from disseminating the information to other labs and researchers or the public for that matter...just not through the media. If you work in the private sector, you're probably bound by the same rules, so what's the big deal?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

As government employees they need to get media clearance. Perhaps the next government will have a different policy. It's not Orwellian, since this guy has already published his scientific paper and is bitching to the newspaper about it with apparent impunity. That flood happened 13,000 years ago. Hearing about it a few days later is no big deal.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

*Science and the Media*



kps said:


> You can't talk with the media, it doesn't look like they're stopping you from disseminating the information to other labs and researchers or the public for that matter...just not through the media. If you work in the private sector, you're probably bound by the same rules, so what's the big deal?



Scientific journals are increasingly available to the public. Popular press science writers peruse journals to pick out what might be of interest to the public (and to their editors--with the goal of selling information). There is incresing pressure for all scientific journals to be open, since most research is publicly funded through grants, _etc._, in publicly supported universities. So the questions are: How is "media" defined? Who owns the information/data/findings "discovered" by publicly funded scientists?

Scientists working for (for-profit) businesses are bound by a different set of rules (business rules, not ethical rules). There is a level of anti-intellectualism that threads through small-C conservatism. Canadian conservatism is no exception.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

there's nothing transparent about the Harper government so this is of no surprise.

imagine tax payers actually having the right to hear about the research our tax dollars go to???


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> there's nothing transparent about the Harper government so this is of no surprise.
> 
> imagine tax payers actually having the right to hear about the research our tax dollars go to???


They have a right to hear about it in scientific journals. The scientists need permission to speak to the media. I would find it "Orwellian" if they were prevented from publishing the research.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

because most of the public reads scientific journals regularly.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> because most of the public reads scientific journals regularly.


I would say they don't read them, but that's largely because they're not interested. Those who are know where to look.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> As government employees they need to get media clearance. Perhaps the next government will have a different policy. It's not Orwellian, since this guy has already published his scientific paper and is bitching to the newspaper about it with apparent impunity. That flood happened 13,000 years ago. Hearing about it a few days later is no big deal.


How can there have been a flood 13,000 years ago when the earth is only 6000 years old??


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

*Orwellian?*

Perhaps we need a Ministry of Truth. And we should start to monitor and manage how people speak, and think. Orwell wrote, " In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' " 

Lest we forget: "Ignorance is Strength"


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I would say they don't read them, but that's largely because they're not interested. Those who are know where to look.


i agree, most of the research won't interest the majority of the public, but once in a while certain studies WILL have a broader appeal. so why not allow the 'media' to sound off about it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i agree, most of the research won't interest the majority of the public, but once in a while certain studies WILL have a broader appeal. so why not allow the 'media' to sound off about it?


The media can sound off about the research and the study as it appears in the journals. They will just have to wait a few days for the author to speak about it. Although apparently this guy is free to speak to the newspapers at will to complain about the situation.

Kleles, don't be so quick to toss around the term _Orwellian_. If you think that government is best suited to provide health care and has the right to drive other health care providers out of business, then don't complain.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Kleles: in his haste to put you in your place, MacFury failed to add "and that's an order." Now off you go!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Kleles: in his haste to put you in your place, MacFury failed to add "and that's an order." Now off you go!


Max has always been at war with Eurasia.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

What's at issue here is much less about the public's ability to access peer reviewed science (the paper in question was published in Nature, which is not publicly accessible, BTW) but rather what benefit Canada gets from Harper's policy of muzzling scientists.

In this specific instance, the paper had aroused international media interest and was being covered by the BBC and other international news agencies. This is relatively common for Nature papers, because they're often of general interest to the public. However, because of the Conservative's anti-science policies, Canadians are not aware of the high-impact research our own scientists are publishing.

How can anyone argue that this is good for Canada?

Most of Harper's anti-science policies are subtle and implemented in a way that is difficult to get people interested in (like halving the tenure of NSERC scholarships, such that it is now effectively impossible for Canadian graduate students to finish post-graduate degrees within the time supported by the program). One of the things that surprises me about this move is that it is so blatantly and unapologetically aimed to keep Canadians ignorant of research done in their own country. It's not only Orwellian, it's poor politics.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

With the amount of misinformation science has become famous for in the past few years in particular, it's a good thing they monitor what they publish. No sense causing alarm when there is none.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> In this specific instance, the paper had aroused international media interest and was being covered by the BBC and other international news agencies.


Perhaps this is the reason --run amok media which continually spreads FUD, misinformation and gives air time to every flake and weirdo without any consideration to accuracy or truth.

Has there been any incident where permission to speak with the media was refused once asked?



kleles said:


> Scientists working for (for-profit) businesses are bound by a different set of rules (business rules, not ethical rules).


So, in other words, you're saying private enterprise has no ethics? That's ridiculous.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Years ago I tried to get more information on an NRC report and the protocol was that NRC's own handlers needed to review questions in advance and clear the information request before allowing access to researchers. That has continued with subsequent requests. They were happy to comply when their own department was doing the screening--not so happy when others are doing it.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> With the amount of misinformation science has become famous for in the past few years in particular, it's a good thing they monitor what they publish. No sense causing alarm when there is none.





kps said:


> Perhaps this is the reason --run amok media which continually spreads FUD, misinformation and gives air time to every flake and weirdo without any consideration to accuracy or truth.


disagree 100%.

you could apply those arguments to rationalize state run propaganda news as being in the "public interest". The whole point of a free press is to disseminate information to the public for consumption, even if it has different view points.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> disagree 100%.
> 
> you could apply those arguments to rationalize state run propaganda news as being in the "public interest". The whole point of a free press is to disseminate information to the public for consumption, even if it has different view points.


That anyone could rationalize state-funded media at all is a mystery to me.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Nobody is muzzling anyone. If those scientists want to talk to anyone they want, any time they want about their work, they are perfectly free to go work for themselves. 

If they want to work for the government, they need to get clearance to talk to the media, full stop. EVERYONE who works for the government has to get permission before talking to the media, and they always have.

To turn this into something that has Harper "muzzling" anyone, or being "Orwellian" is being deliberately dishonest.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The data had already been *PUBLISHED* in Nature (i.e. already passed peer-review). This is about the government preventing scientists communicating with the public *after* publishing their work in the professional literature. The media was asking the scientists for an interview, because they had published important research and the media wanted to run a story about it.

They were refused access because of a NEW CONSERVATIVE policy of controlling information releases from federal scientists. It's classic Harper muzzling, and it's something Canadians should view with deep suspicion.

There is no way this can be justified as being beneficial to Canadians.



SINC said:


> With the amount of misinformation science has become famous for in the past few years in particular, it's a good thing they monitor what they publish. No sense causing alarm when there is none.


What's alarming here is the disregard the Harper government has for science and the press.

As a journalist, I don't understand how you can be anything but appalled at this disgusting example of the government preventing the press from having access to information, especially given that Canadian tax dollars had paid for the research.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

bryanc said:


> They were refused access because of a NEW CONSERVATIVE policy of controlling information releases from federal scientists. It's classic Harper muzzling, and it's something Canadians should view with deep suspicion.


No it isn't.

My wife works for the provincial government here in Manitoba. *NDP* government. Major developments involving policies and procedures directly related to her job happen all the time. Top stories on the local news with regularity. The media knows who she is, they know who the people involved in the story are, and they have the published official policies. Under no circumstances is she EVER allowed to speak directly with the media without prior permission, and the likelihood of that permission actually being granted is very slim. 

That's just how it is with government. It bears repeating, the very suggestion that it's anything else is deliberate dishonesty.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> This is about the government preventing scientists communicating with the public *after* publishing their work in the professional literature. The media was asking the scientists for an interview, because they had published important research and the media wanted to run a story about it.


Do these scientists have media training?

I'm not sure if this is an issue of muzzling science or an issue of muzzling the modern media--journalism doesn't seem to be what it used to be. Accuracy of reporting often seems to give way to sensationalism.

Just my gut reaction to the issue; I haven't given this a close look or deep thought.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rubbish. If you're a government spokesperson, and you're told when you can and can't talk to the media that's one thing. But when you're a research scientist, and you're told you can't talk to the media about data you've already published, you're being muzzled.

The irony is that the paper wasn't even anything remotely controversial or relevant to government policy. It was about a 13,000 year old geological event. Imagine how hard it would be to get information to the Canadian public if you had scientific data that conflicted with government policy.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Yeah, gotta agree with bryanc here. It's not the government's job to filter the results of scientific research, especially since the point of the research is to benefit the public. It's not like a private corporation performing R&D for their own products - it's public research, for goodness sake!

How can this be considered anything but Orwellian? This just further demonstrates Harper's agenda to keep us all stupid.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> Yeah, gotta agree with bryanc here. It's not the government's job to filter the results of scientific research, especially since the point of the research is to benefit the public. It's not like a private corporation performing R&D for their own products - it's public research, for goodness sake!
> 
> How can this be considered anything but Orwellian? This just further demonstrates Harper's agenda to keep us all stupid.


For Pete's sake, they've already PUBLISHED the work. They aren't being prevented from disseminating their findings, just being prevented from making asses of themselves in front of a camera.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> making asses of themselves in front of a camera.


well, i guess if anyone could be experts on that it'd be the Harper government.

glad to hear they're doing it for the scientists own good.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> For Pete's sake, they've already PUBLISHED the work. They aren't being prevented from disseminating their findings, just being prevented from making asses of themselves in front of a camera.


So would you approve of a state-run system of determining who gets to discuss their publicly funded work in the popular press and when?

Do you have a subscription to Nature? Personal subscriptions to Nature run about $200/year, and institutional subscriptions are astronomical. Furthermore, most people won't have the expertise to understand most papers in Nature, so there's not much value there. However, many papers do run science columns, and the subject matter published therein is often derived from high-impact journals like Science and Nature. These columns are aimed at the lay public, and they usually include some quotes from interviews with the authors of these papers. This is what Harper's policy of muzzling scientists is preventing; the communication of current high-impact science to Canadians.

How can you be anything other than appalled at this?!?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Actually I am not appalled at all with one of the most common procedures in government. Trying to get an interview with any government rep requires permission and has since I began in the early 1960s. Take a valium, it's normal policy and nothing new.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> So would you approve of a state-run system of determining who gets to discuss their publicly funded work in the popular press and when?
> 
> Do you have a subscription to Nature? Personal subscriptions to Nature run about $200/year, and institutional subscriptions are astronomical. Furthermore, most people won't have the expertise to understand most papers in Nature, so there's not much value there. However, many papers do run science columns, and the subject matter published therein is often derived from high-impact journals like Science and Nature. These columns are aimed at the lay public, and they usually include some quotes from interviews with the authors of these papers. This is what Harper's policy of muzzling scientists is preventing; the communication of current high-impact science to Canadians.
> 
> How can you be anything other than appalled at this?!?


I don't even approve of state-run science. However, if people are eager to allow the government to spend their tax dollars on this, then the government must also be the arbiter of media interviews. 

If the lay public never got to hear about the big flood, it wouldn't trouble me. Newspapers are free to run an article with a precis of the paper as it appeared in the journal, or the news media can wait a few days until they receive an OK for the interview. These scientists are just brains-for-hire public service employees, not some special class exempt from media policy.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*FUD is FUD*

You are a scientist. You work for the government. That's your job. You are not media spoksperson for the government. Therefore, you do your work, which includes publishing in peer reviewed journals. That's what you do. The government, at all levels, has people who talk to the media. That is not what you do. It is no different than working for a company. It is neither your job, nor your position to be speaking to the media without prior permission.

Canada is known for it's civil servants who by and large are both civil (yes I know there are exceptions) and do serve... IE they do their job and answer to their masters. Their job is to be apolitical. They are known throughout the world for being very good at it.

That article is anti government FUD and nothing else.

I am fiscally conservative and socially quite liberal. So there are parts of both the left and the right I have problems with. One of the problems I am having with the Canadian Left, ie Liberals and their supporters, is a continuous attack designed solely for Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. The Liberals are currently out of power for good reason - they are intellectually bankrupt. Their method of getting around it from PR point of view is to take every opportunity to pee in the pot, hopefully, eventually making the Harper pot unpalateable. It is not a style of politics that I am either impressed with or want to see much more of. 

Waiting for Sun News as an antidode to the Communist Broadcasting System.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lichen Software said:


> You are a scientist. You work for the government. That's your job. You are not media spoksperson for the government. Therefore, you do your work, which includes publishing in peer reviewed journals. That's what you do. The government, at all levels has people who talk to the media. that is not what you do. It is no different than working for a company. It is neither their job, nor their position to be speaking to the media without prior permission.


I really got the impression that the guy was ticked because he was missing a "celebrity moment." It's certainly not earth shaking news that a flood passed by 13,000 years ago. Interesting, but not the sort of thing we write up in our diaries.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I really got the impression that the guy was ticked because he was missing a "celebrity moment." It's certainly not earth shaking news that a flood passed by 13,000 years ago. Interesting, but not the sort of thing we write up in our diaries.


Which is why, if it's going to get any air time as a story, it needs a spin. 

I could easily see something like "The Word is True: Scientists find evidence of Biblical flood!" Somehow, I don't think that was the point of the research.

So whoever talks to the media about this story does need to know how to talk to the media.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Not really the issue*



Macfury said:


> I really got the impression that the guy was ticked because he was missing a "celebrity moment." It's certainly not earth shaking news that a flood passed by 13,000 years ago. Interesting, but not the sort of thing we write up in our diaries.


It's not really the issue. Even if it were riviting news, as opposed to "The Flood of Pre History", he is a civil servant and his job is to be civil and serve ... In this case do his scientific work.

I remember my brother was land use director for the NWT and ended up talking to the news during a really bad forest file year. It was not his place and he got slapped ... by Liberals ... And it was riviting news as the N.W.T was pretty much on fire.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Lichen Software said:


> he is a civil servant and his job is to be civil and serve ... In this case do his scientific work.


And he did. And the media found it interesting and asked to interview him with the intent of informing average Canadians (without access to, or the expertise necessary to interpret his publication) about his discoveries. And the Harper government prevented this communication.

As the researcher said, science is about generating new knowledge and communicating it to others. If the government of Canada doesn't want researchers talking to people, they shouldn't be funding research. (Indeed, I do think this is one of Harper's long term objectives, as his is fundamentally opposed to science).


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*I think I just put my finger on what really bothers me about this*

Academic freedom is a fundamental value in science. It's like freedom of expression in normal society.

While the researcher in question works for Environment Canada, he's also seconded to UVic, and is therefore an academic scientist. Having the government vetting his communications with the media or anyone else is a gross breach of his academic freedom.

But even more worrying, if the Conservatives are this obstructive about communicating with a researcher who's published data about ancient history, imagine how hard it would be for a scientist who has evidence that current government policy is in serious error.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> If the government of Canada doesn't want researchers talking to people, they shouldn't be funding research.


This is not logically consistent. If the government sees value in paying for the research it does not necessarily hold that it should not fund it, merely because it does not give its employees carte blanche in talking to the media.



bryanc said:


> Academic freedom is a fundamental value in science. It's like freedom of expression in normal society.


No, it is not a fundamental freedom. It is a desirable condition of employment.



bryanc said:


> While the researcher in question works for Environment Canada, he's also seconded to UVic, and is therefore an academic scientist. Having the government vetting his communications with the media or anyone else is a gross breach of his academic freedom.


Great! Let UVic fight it out with the feds!



bryanc said:


> But even more worrying, if the Conservatives are this obstructive about communicating with a researcher who's published data about ancient history, imagine how hard it would be for a scientist who has evidence that current government policy is in serious error.


Just as difficult. As it has always been for whistleblowers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Seems to me this whole thread is a single scientist upset at the system and offended because peers are restricted to giving interviews like any other government lacky. Get a cabinet post and talk away.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Academic freedom is a fundamental value in science. It's like freedom of expression in normal society.
> 
> While the researcher in question works for Environment Canada, he's also seconded to UVic, and is therefore an academic scientist. Having the government vetting his communications with the media or anyone else is a gross breach of his academic freedom.
> 
> But even more worrying, if the Conservatives are this obstructive about communicating with a researcher who's published data about ancient history, imagine how hard it would be for a scientist who has evidence that current government policy is in serious error.


The only question that matters is who paid for the research. If it was the scientist conducting the investigation then he should have free will to do whatever he wants with the findings including speaking to the media. If it was paid for by someone else he is merely an employee and should be limited to his employers restrictions as far as speaking to the media is concerned. Period.

Just like someone who works for any company/employer... just because you work on a project doesn't mean you own the rights to the intellectual property. 

If he did not initiate/pay for the project he is not the author, just an employee...ever hear of a ghost writer? Essentially this is what this fellow is, he was paid to do a job and the results, good or bad are the property of someone else and so they control the communications regarding the final product/report.

To use your pejorative word, it is muzzling... but it is right and correct as far as intellectual property rights are concerned as they exist now in law.

You may wish it were different, but as it it exists now the government has every right to vet the communications/media interviews of its employees... if it allows for them at all.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

kps said:


> So, in other words, you're saying private enterprise has no ethics? That's ridiculous.


No. I tried to say that research ethics should be universal, with no difference between private and public researchers.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Kleles, don't be so quick to toss around the term _Orwellian_. If you think that government is best suited to provide health care and has the right to drive other health care providers out of business, then don't complain.


I was not the first to toss "Orwellian" into this thread.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

It is not unusual to be told not to discuss your work with the media. I was a medical lab tech with the team working on blood samples during the SARS outbreak. We had reporters trying to ask us questions about our work. We were told in no uncertain terms to say "No comment". There were special media people to handle the talking. 

Scientists and medical persons are nothing special, though some seem to *think* they are. The ones who supply your paycheque have the ultimate say. Given how the media love to sensationalize everything and report out of context, I'd rather someone else trained in "media speak" did the talking.

No one is trying to prevent a scientist from submitting their work for peer review or publishing their findings in a scientific journal. I see this as a case where someone thinks they are special and above the rules. As in anything else, if they don't want to abide by this employer's rules, go work for someone else who meets your specifications of employment. simple


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> The only question that matters is who paid for the research. If it was the scientist conducting the investigation then he should have free will to do whatever he wants with the findings including speaking to the media. If it was paid for by someone else he is merely an employee and should be limited to his employers restrictions as far as speaking to the media is concerned. Period.


except that TAX PAYERS are the ones who paid for the research, and the government is limiting the dissemination of that research to the tax payers by restricting who gets to talk about it.

That's a poor decision for EVERYONE involved. Obviously there are exceptions (top secret & classified projects) but once research has been published the taxpayers and researchers should have the ability to access and discuss that research in whatever form (outside of plagiarism).

What I'd like clarification on is if this is indeed a new policy the conservatives have placed on researchers, or if it is a standard government policy that has existed across the board for all departments (including scientists) prior to the Harper government.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> disagree 100%.
> 
> you could apply those arguments to rationalize state run propaganda news as being in the "public interest". The whole point of a free press is to disseminate information to the public for consumption, even if it has different view points.


So you're in favour of trash media. Perhaps you should revise that percentage based on the quality of journalistic reporting in recent years. The proliferation of print rags, faux TV news and bloggers with agendas has placed much of what is out there into question. I seriously doubt that any *accredited *journalist will be refused access to any scientist they wish to interview. That would be political suicide.

I'm still waiting for bryanc to respond to my question whether or not anyone has been "muzzled".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> except that TAX PAYERS are the ones who paid for the research, and the government is limiting the dissemination of that research to the tax payers by restricting who gets to talk about it.
> 
> That's a poor decision for EVERYONE involved. Obviously there are exceptions (top secret & classified projects) but once research has been published the taxpayers and researchers should have the ability to access and discuss that research in whatever form (outside of plagiarism).


Go to a library that carries that journal.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> So you're in favour of trash media.


no, i'm in favour of a free press.



kps said:


> I seriously doubt that any *accredited *journalist will be refused access to any scientist they wish to interview. That would be political suicide.


so you don't consider Canwest News Service, CBC, ABC, & Reuters *accredited *? because that's who were refused interviews.




Macfury said:


> Go to a library that carries that journal.


why? if it was in higher profile media wouldn't that benefit everyone?

I don't see where the public interest is best served by refusing our scientists to give interviews? 

explain.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

The scientist, as far as I can tell, wasn't denied the interview—it just wasn't cleared fast enough to meet the journalists' deadlines:



> Dallimore finally got clearance to talk to reporters from Margaux Stastny, director of communication in Paradis' office, on March 31, a week after NRC communications branch was told the study was appearing in Nature, and two days after reporters began approaching Dallimore for interviews.
> 
> By then, the reporters' deadlines had passed and they had already completed their stories about the ancient flood. Canwest News Service, CBC, ABC, Reuters and other organizations based their reports on interviews with co-authors of the study from universities outside Canada that responded to interview requests promptly.
> 
> Read more: Tightened muzzle on scientists is 'Orwellian'


So, yeah. I'm thinking this guy is pissed because (surprise, surprise) the government was slow to react and didn't get his 15 minutes of fame. But I guess he found another way.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

i-rui said:


> What I'd like clarification on is if this is indeed a new policy the conservatives have placed on researchers, or if it is a standard government policy that has existed across the board for all departments (including scientists) prior to the Harper government.


My understanding is that it's a new policy that was brought in by Harper in May.

And I think it's fair to draw a distinction between academic research regarding ancient climate phenomena, and current, potentially sensitive information (like how many cases of SARS are detected within a given sample or how big a wildfire is). 

I've yet to see anyone make a case about how this policy benefits Canada.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

bryanc said:


> I've yet to see anyone make a case about how this policy benefits Canada.


It doesn't and won't, just like most policies that determine how a large corporation conducts its internal workings.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> It doesn't and won't, just like most policies that determine how a large corporation conducts its internal workings.


But the fact is, it is common practice by industry and governments alike. Only authorized, professionally trained spokespersons are allowed to comment.

It's the very same thing as bryanc always complaining that we simpletons cannot understand science and should not be allowed to comment on what we don't understand regarding climate research. Now that the reverse is in play and it affects scientists, he cries foul.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> The only question that matters is who paid for the research.


You did. And Harper's new policy is that you don't get to hear about it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> It's the very same thing as bryanc always complaining that we simpletons cannot understand science and should not be allowed to comment on what we don't understand regarding climate research. Now that the reverse is in play and it affects scientists, he cries foul.


As usual, SINC, you miss the subtlety. I have never suggested that the lay public should not discuss or have opinions on science, but rather that the opinions of the inexpert do not have the same value as the opinions of the experts.

I have a subscription to Nature, so this is no skin off my nose. But as a Canadian, I'm appalled that the federal government is putting more obstacles in the way of journalists who are trying to provide coverage of science for Canadians.

Apparently you take a dim view of science, and don't see value in it, but the general consensus is that the scientific illiteracy of Canadians, and Westerners in general, is a serious social problem, and one that Journalists can help mitigate. But only if the anti-intellectual forces in our governments and elsewhere are not allowed to stop them.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> But the fact is, it is common practice by industry and governments alike. Only authorized, professionally trained spokespersons are allowed to comment.


Exactly.



> It's the very same thing as bryanc always complaining that we simpletons cannot understand science and should not be allowed to comment on what we don't understand regarding climate research. Now that the reverse is in play and it affects scientists, he cries foul.


Touché


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Apparently you take a dim view of science, and don't see value in it, but the general consensus is that the scientific illiteracy of Canadians, and Westerners in general, is a serious social problem, and one that Journalists can help mitigate. But only if the anti-intellectual forces in our governments and elsewhere are not allowed to stop them.


SINC takes no dim view of science--just places its employees inside the government framework instead of outside it. Giving government science employees direct access to the media instead of making them wait will mean that some people will wait a few days to skip reading it in the bottom of page 83 of the newspaper, instead of skipping it today, or ignoring it in _Nature_. 

I think the outcry by the scientifically illiterate masses over failing to hear about that ancient flood is indicative of an endemic underwhelming interest in pure research, not some sudden result of Conservative policy.

Scientists, get over yourselves. It's just a job!

By the way, I hear that garbage collectors are angry that garbage collection issues aren't getting enough play in the news media. Wouldn't we all be better off if garbage collection issues were more broadly covered, especially since we pay for garbage collection out of government funds? If we only stopped muzzling garbage collectors, we would understand the true issues facing garbage collectors. Wouldn't we all be better off?

Oh, and then there are the Quantity Surveyors...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> By the way, I hear that garbage collectors are angry that garbage collection issues aren't getting enough play in the news media. Wouldn't we all be better off if garbage collection issues were more broadly covered, especially since we pay for garbage collection out of government funds? If we only stopped muzzling garbage collectors, we would understand the true issues facing garbage collectors. Wouldn't we all be better off?


Hey, great analogy. This illustrates my point very well. If a garbage collector found something interesting in the garbage, and notified his/her peers, and the media found out about it but the government obstructed journalists who were trying to interview him/her about it, I'd be exactly as pissed off about it. As would any reasonable person who doesn't agree that the government should be restricting our access to information, especially when we're paying for it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> SINC takes no dim view of science


Let him speak for himself



SINC said:


> With the amount of misinformation science has become famous for...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Let him speak for himself


If you believe that science did not spew disinformation and altered input to affect output on climate, you're denying reality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Hey, great analogy. This illustrates my point very well. If a garbage collector found something interesting in the garbage, and notified his/her peers, and the media found out about it but the government obstructed journalists who were trying to interview him/her about it, I'd be exactly as pissed off about it. As would any reasonable person who doesn't agree that the government should be restricting our access to information, especially when we're paying for it.


This is why we have whistleblower protection laws--but not why rank and file workers should have direct access to the media to tout themselves at will.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> This is why we have whistleblower protection laws--but not why rank and file workers should have direct access to the media to tout themselves at will.


Everyone should (and most of us have) direct access to the media to tout themselves. Presumably the media isn't going to run stories on everyone who calls them up seeking attention. But remember, in this case it was the media who was seeking an interview with the scientist who'd published an exciting discovery.

If a garbage man found something interesting in the garbage, told his colleagues, and the media found out and wanted to interview the guy, should the fact that he's paid by the government prevent him from being interviewed? Obviously the guy's story wouldn't be taken as official government policy, but if the media deems it interesting, why not let the guy talk?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> If you believe that science did not spew disinformation and altered input to affect output on climate, you're denying reality.



Sinc, now you're sounding silly. Science doesn't 'do' anything. Science just_ is._ You can get pissed by those who call themselves scientists, fine; blame humans all you want! Otherwise, you might as well start a hate campaign against physics or chemistry.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Max said:


> Sinc, now you're sounding silly. Science doesn't 'do' anything. Science just_ is._ You can get pissed by those who call themselves scientists, fine; blame humans all you want! Otherwise, you might as well start a hate campaign against physics or chemistry.


That's good distinction to make. Some people who call themselves scientists use the word science as a front for what they're really pushing, politics. They then refer to people to criticize their empty position as "anti-science". Nobody is anti-science. Some people just have sufficient discernment skills to recognize when someone is spewing BS and just calling it science.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Everyone should (and most of us have) direct access to the media to tout themselves.


Yes and no.

If I'm speaking for myself in relation to nothing but myself, yes, I do. 

If I am speaking for an organization, no, I don't.
If I am speaking about something some organization I work for did, no, I don't.

You know all those quotes you see from people in news articles? They don't actually say those things. Someone like me (well, me 1 career ago) writes those things for them in a press release, and then gets it approved internally, and then it goes out.

Alternatively, they get media training so that in a press conference, they are able to answer and speak the words written for them and stay on message without letting any media trip them up in to saying something that could be damaging, misconstrued or otherwise spun into a different story than the one that the organization is trying to get across.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> If a garbage man found something interesting in the garbage, told his colleagues, and the media found out and wanted to interview the guy, should the fact that he's paid by the government prevent him from being interviewed?


Yes.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Sinc, now you're sounding silly. Science doesn't 'do' anything. Science just_ is._ You can get pissed by those who call themselves scientists, fine; blame humans all you want! Otherwise, you might as well start a hate campaign against physics or chemistry.


Shucks, Max. Chill, man.

You know Sinc's the Perfesser Emeticus of that thar authoritative thread!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yes.


Good luck building that 'libertarian' police state.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> If I'm speaking for myself in relation to nothing but myself, yes, I do.
> If I am speaking for an organization, no, I don't.
> If I am speaking about something some organization I work for did, no, I don't.


Fair enough. I guess that's the basis of this argument (and thanks for helping clarify it).

I would argue that as a research scientist, being asked by the media to discuss _your own_ published research (especially after it has already passed the gruelling test of peer review for publication in the highest-impact journal in your field) is an example of the first case. You are speaking for yourself about your own work. The fact that they may be getting paid by some organization does not pertain, because they are not being asked to speak for or about that organization.

When the government blocks media access to scientists who are willing to speak about their research, they are damaging our society.



> You know all those quotes you see from people in news articles? They don't actually say those things. Someone like me (well, me 1 career ago) writes those things for them in a press release, and then gets it approved internally, and then it goes out.
> 
> Alternatively, they get media training so that in a press conference, they are able to answer and speak the words written for them and stay on message without letting any media trip them up in to saying something that could be damaging, misconstrued or otherwise spun into a different story than the one that the organization is trying to get across.


Yes, I'm aware that this is how governments and corporations work. It is not how academics work. When academics are interviewed by the media (as I, and many of my colleagues have been), no one prepares our script, no one approves what we say, and there *is* no message the *organization* is trying to get out; it's our work and we decide how to communicate it.

It is certainly entirely fair to say that many times we do a bad job (and I think this is something both scientists and journalists should be working to improve), but there is no role for political manipulation of the message.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Fair enough. I guess that's the basis of this argument (and thanks for helping clarify it).
> 
> I would argue that as a research scientist, being asked by the media to discuss _your own_ published research (especially after it has already passed the gruelling test of peer review for publication in the highest-impact journal in your field) is an example of the first case. You are speaking for yourself about your own work. The fact that they may be getting paid by some organization does not pertain, because they are not being asked to speak for or about that organization.
> 
> When the government blocks media access to scientists who are willing to speak about their research, they are damaging our society.


And when someone in a private company does research that results in a new technology, or new application of some technology, they don't talk to the press. It's their work, their research, it's been through it's own internal testing, but they don't get to comment on it.

Public Relations talks to the press. That's their job.



bryanc said:


> Yes, I'm aware that this is how governments and corporations work. It is not how academics work. When academics are interviewed by the media (as I, and many of my colleagues have been), no one prepares our script, no one approves what we say, and there *is* no message the *organization* is trying to get out; it's our work and we decide how to communicate it.
> 
> It is certainly entirely fair to say that many times we do a bad job (and I think this is something both scientists and journalists should be working to improve), but there is no role for political manipulation of the message.


It's not always an issue of political manipulation. There's also preventing media manipulation. 

Particularly when it is something that the government funds.... this could very easily be spun into "Government wastes money again on pointless research." You get one scientist making some self-deprecating joke and there you go--now you have a usable quote. 

Or, in my earlier example, "Harper's funds proof of Biblical Flood" You think it helps science at all to have that kind of a message out there?

Part of the role of public relations is to ensure that the proper message gets out.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Sonal said:


> You know all those quotes you see from people in news articles? They don't actually say those things. Someone like me (well, me 1 career ago) writes those things for them in a press release, and then gets it approved internally, and then it goes out.
> 
> Alternatively, they get media training so that in a press conference, they are able to answer and speak the words written for them and stay on message without letting any media trip them up in to saying something that could be damaging, misconstrued or otherwise spun into a different story than the one that the organization is trying to get across.





Sonal said:


> Public Relations talks to the press. That's their job.


but wait, this isn't what's happening here. The government isn't going to release a press release for them. Nor are they going to give them media training. The government is saying they have to screen who they can talk to. It isn't a matter of trying to train them to say the right thing, it's a matter of making sure they don't talk to media outlets that can get their message out to a wider audience.

And the question is why? Those media outlets just went and interviewed OTHER scientists from other countries (which i guess don't have the same gag orders on their researchers?)

Did the government go over their published research in Nature magazine to make sure it was kosher?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> You did. And Harper's new policy is that you don't get to hear about it.


Indirectly of course but you know this is a lame argument. I didn't "contract it" or order it to be done and I certainly don't own it just like I don't own the roads I drive on even though I helped pay for them.

No the policy doesn't mean I don't get to hear about it, it simply means that those who are at a higher level than the employee tasked to do the work get to decide what the message is and who disseminates it and that makes perfect sense.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

You gotta love Ehmac threads where the usual suspects defend the Harper policies to the nth degree.

Remember Harper is good, Harper is good, to say otherwise is despicable.

bryanc don't disturb the cesspool that is the Harper Government. Shame! Shame!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> And when someone in a private company does research that results in a new technology, or new application of some technology, they don't talk to the press. It's their work, their research, it's been through it's own internal testing, but they don't get to comment on it.


Yes, and any researcher working for a private company has signed NDAs and is getting paid far more than publicly funded researchers working at academic institutions. We [are supposed to] get academic freedom, and the people working in the private sector get the cash.



> Public Relations talks to the press. That's their job.


Well, it would be an entirely different issue if UVic's PR people were stepping in and trying to help this researcher avoid getting misquoted by the press. But that's not what's happening here.

It's also not an IP issue. The government didn't contract this work; Environment Canada pays [part of] this guys salary so he can pursue his research interests in an academic institution and he is not only free to publish his findings, he is required to do so as part of his job. 

So Harper doesn't care if researchers communicate with other researchers, he just doesn't want average Canadians learning about it... I guess Harper has an even lower opinion of the average Canadian's ability to understand science than I do, because he'd rather you didn't even hear about it, let alone start forming your own opinions on it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Fair enough. I guess that's the basis of this argument (and thanks for helping clarify it).
> 
> I would argue that as a research scientist, being asked by the media to discuss _your own_ published research (especially after it has already passed the gruelling test of peer review for publication in the highest-impact journal in your field) is an example of the first case. You are speaking for yourself about your own work. The fact that they may be getting paid by some organization does not pertain, because they are not being asked to speak for or about that organization.
> 
> ...


Why are research scientists in a different position than any other employee tasked to do a job? Look at movies for example, where often times it is the people behind the scenes doing the truly ground breaking creative work (special effects and animation and such). The do not get to speak about the movie. They get their credit when the credits role, but they don't get to be in the spot light except amongst their peers. The people who speak to the media are those who the producers want to speak to the media, primarily the actors, directors and producers.

So why should this fellow get to be so special? He has had the work published and his name credited with the work and if the work is good he will be respected amongst his peers. It seems that he may have a bit of a pre-madonna ego and isn't satisfied with his behind the scenes roll.

This man is not an academic he is a paid government employee and as such marches to do a different drummer and tune than those in academia.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> You gotta love Ehmac threads where the usual suspects defend the Harper policies to the nth degree.
> 
> Remember Harper is good, Harper is good, to say otherwise is despicable.
> 
> bryanc don't disturb the cesspool that is the Harper Government. Shame! Shame!


And the usual suspects who come out start pointing fingers at individuals rather than discussing the issues in a reasoned manner.  It isn't a matter of defending Harper it a matter of defending policy that you think makes sense, it wouldn't matter who issued the policy, if you agree with it it is only expected that you will argue in defence of it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Why are research scientists in a different position than any other employee tasked to do a job?


It depends. A scientist hired by a private firm to do applied research under NDA would certainly have no cause for complaint if her employer prevented her from speaking with the media about her work. But an academic scientist at a publicly funded Canadian university doing basic research with public money, who is expected to publish their research in peer-reviewed academic journals is in a completely different situation.

It's not that this person was going to the media saying "look at me! look at me!". His research was published in the most prestigious journal in the world and the media went to him to ask about it, but the government said "sorry... we aren't letting him talk to you until we decide if his story fits our message."

There's no justification for this sort of government interference in the media.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> And the usual suspects who come out start pointing fingers at individuals rather than discussing the issues in a reasoned manner.  It isn't a matter of defending Harper it a matter of defending policy that you think makes sense, it wouldn't matter who issued the policy, if you agree with it it is only expected that you will argue in defence of it.


Agreed. Media policies have been in place for decades and that worker scientists are subject to them is no surprise. 

Scientists want academic freedom? Then get them to quit their jobs and fund their own work and they will be truly free. They are brains for hire and nothing more.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> It depends. A scientist hired by a private firm to do applied research under NDA would certainly have no cause for complaint if her employer prevented her from speaking with the media about her work. But an academic scientist at a publicly funded Canadian university doing basic research with public money, who is expected to publish their research in peer-reviewed academic journals is in a completely different situation.
> 
> It's not that this person was going to the media saying "look at me! look at me!". His research was published in the most prestigious journal in the world and the media went to him to ask about it, but the government said "sorry... we aren't letting him talk to you until we decide if his story fits our message."
> 
> There's no justification for this sort of government interference in the media.


Scott Dallimore the co-author, works for NRC not a university, as I said he marches to a different drummer and tune than those in academia.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Scott Dallimore the co-author, works for NRC not a university, as I said he marches to a different drummer and tune than those in academia.


What does that have to do with blocking media access to Andrew Weaver at UVic?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> What does that have to do with blocking media access to Andrew Weaver at UVic?


It doesn't and Weaver wasn't blocked from speaking to the media. I think you need to read the article again. Andrew Weaver at UVic is merely a critic of the policy he had nothing to do with the research at NRC. Weaver was not blocked from speaking to the media Scott Dallimore was, or more accurately he was delayed in having the opportunity to speak to the media, he was granted access but the journalist's deadline had passed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Sinc, now you're sounding silly. Science doesn't 'do' anything. Science just_ is._ You can get pissed by those who call themselves scientists, fine; blame humans all you want! Otherwise, you might as well start a hate campaign against physics or chemistry.


Perhaps it should have more properly read:



SINC said:


> If you believe that _scientists_ did not spew disinformation and altered input to affect output on climate, you're denying reality.


I guess when you have nothing positive you say about a Canadian topic, as someone unaffected by the decision, you toss supposedly funny Brit stuff like this:



Snapple Quaffer said:


> You know Sinc's the Perfesser Emeticus of that thar authoritative thread!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> I guess when you have nothing positive you say about a Canadian topic, as someone unaffected by the decision, you toss supposedly funny Brit stuff like this:


Leaves 'em screaming in Loch Lomond, I hear...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

i-rui said:


> but wait, this isn't what's happening here. The government isn't going to release a press release for them. Nor are they going to give them media training. The government is saying they have to screen who they can talk to. It isn't a matter of trying to train them to say the right thing, it's a matter of making sure they don't talk to media outlets that can get their message out to a wider audience.
> 
> And the question is why? Those media outlets just went and interviewed OTHER scientists from other countries (which i guess don't have the same gag orders on their researchers?)
> 
> Did the government go over their published research in Nature magazine to make sure it was kosher?


What happened here was a scientist was pissed because it took too long to be cleared. It's pretty simple.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

BigDL said:


> You gotta love Ehmac threads where the usual suspects defend the Harper policies to the nth degree.
> 
> Remember Harper is good, Harper is good, to say otherwise is despicable.
> 
> bryanc don't disturb the cesspool that is the Harper Government. Shame! Shame!


Oddly enough the inverse was true before Harper took power. How odd.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

bryanc said:


> Yes, and any researcher working for a private company has signed NDAs and is getting paid far more than publicly funded researchers working at academic institutions. We [are supposed to] get academic freedom, and the people working in the private sector get the cash.


When you are hired, your employer informs you of what is expected of you and the procedures that must be followed… no NDA is required.

If you don't like the money, find work elsewhere. Don't use it as an excuse to do whatever you want. The research was published—end of story. If you're looking for fortune and glory, apply elsewhere.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Look at movies for example, where often times it is the people behind the scenes doing the truly ground breaking creative work (special effects and animation and such). The do not get to speak about the movie. They get their credit when the credits role, but they don't get to be in the spot light except amongst their peers. The people who speak to the media are those who the producers want to speak to the media, primarily the actors, directors and producers.


Actually this isn't entirely true. BEFORE the movie has been released I'm sure they'd have to get permission to talk about a film, but once their work is complete they are most definitely free to talk about the film. I read interviews with concept artists all the time. The reason few people hear about it is because there isn't an audience that cares enough for it to be in the mainstream media (hence why certain Oscars are given prior to the broadcast).



MannyP Design said:


> What happened here was a scientist was pissed because it took too long to be cleared. It's pretty simple.


Thanks, I read that much. But you failed to recognize the larger question as to WHY the government requires to clear them to speak about information that's already been published.

(and i'm sorry, but the reason that it happens in the corporate world isn't any sort of reasonable rationale. The government shouldn't be taking cues from how to run OUR business from greedy entities that don't give one iota of thought to the public good)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> Actually this isn't entirely true. BEFORE the movie has been released I'm sure they'd have to get permission to talk about a film, but once their work is complete they are most definitely free to talk about the film. ....)


Timing is indeed everything as the article illustrates.  You can rest assured this is part of the understanding of their terms of employment.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> Thanks, I read that much. But you failed to recognize the larger question as to WHY the government requires to clear them to speak about information that's already been published.
> 
> (and i'm sorry, but the reason that it happens in the corporate world isn't any sort of reasonable rationale. The government shouldn't be taking cues from how to run OUR business from greedy entities that don't give one iota of thought to the public good)


It has already been pointed out several times now. Because an employee doesn't have the right to speak about work that they don't own (in this case the Government of Canada owns the rights) and have simply been hired to produce. That is for their higher ups to decide. It is really quite simple. 

As far as corporations providing an example, it is simply a matter of intellectual property rights, they are subject to the same laws as the government, the example is valid. Why should government policies not be subject to the same logic? You don't own it so you have to clear it with your superiors to talk about it to the media... pretty simple and reasonable actually.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> (and i'm sorry, but the reason that it happens in the corporate world isn't any sort of reasonable rationale. The government shouldn't be taking cues from how to run OUR business from greedy entities that don't give one iota of thought to the public good)


I suggest you think about that statement real hard before you next fill your grocery cart from a corporate grocer.

Making such a statement is pure BS on your part, or do you grow and raise everything you eat?

Corporations must be responsible and protect the public good or you would not be here without food alone or many other things you take for granted.

Is that_ reasonable_ enough for you?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

i-rui said:


> Thanks, I read that much. But you failed to recognize the larger question as to WHY the government requires to clear them to speak about information that's already been published.
> 
> (and i'm sorry, but the reason that it happens in the corporate world isn't any sort of reasonable rationale. The government shouldn't be taking cues from how to run OUR business from greedy entities that don't give one iota of thought to the public good)


Actually it's been addressed several times in this thread and it's absolutely rational—it prevents employees from speaking their mind (putting their personal slant, rather than the Goverment's). No single employee in the public service has the right to represent the Government without due consideration.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> (and i'm sorry, but the reason that it happens in the corporate world isn't any sort of reasonable rationale. The government shouldn't be taking cues from how to run OUR business from greedy entities that don't give one iota of thought to the public good)


Perhaps us taxpayer would be better off if government did take a cue from the private sector instead of us being at the mercy of unaccountable bureaucrats who spend OUR money like it grows on the proverbial tree and who _"don't give one iota of thought to the public good"._


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

It's my experience that government is usually MORE bureaucratic than the private sector.

In this example, any PR person who was unable to get everything cleared before a journalist's deadline, and thus missed an opportunity to garner press coverage, would likely be fired. Especially when they had 2 days to do it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Fastest clearances I've ever seen are in film and TV land, hands-down. The civil service takes far longer and there's more steps to it. Gotta pay tribute to the bureaucratic strata as you work your way through.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Well, I thought it might be my private-sector biased eyes, so I sent the link (without any commentary beyond "tell me what you think") to a scientist I know. 

His comment was interesting, which was that there are two sides to this issue, and while having to clear talking points through bureaucrats does not seem to be the answer, it certainly would not be desirable for scientists to talk directly to the media for the purpose of running their own PR campaign for the scientist's own financial gain. E.g., using public pressure to create a controversy that favours continued research in their area in an attempt to win more government grants. So he thought it made sense for there to be restrictions, particularly if there is government grant money involved.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> His comment was interesting, which was that there are two sides to this issue, and while having to clear talking points through bureaucrats does not seem to be the answer, it certainly would not be desirable for scientists to talk directly to the media for the purpose of running their own PR campaign for the scientist's own financial gain. E.g., using public pressure to create a controversy that favours continued research in their area in an attempt to win more government grants. So he thought it made sense for there to be restrictions, particularly if there is government grant money involved.


Good grief Charlie Brown! A wise scientist who understands media restriction? Incredible. Who'da thunk it?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Not everyone in the sciences thinks they are "special", only a few.... BUT... they are a loud and vocal few.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I guess when you have nothing positive you say about a Canadian topic, as someone unaffected by the decision, you toss supposedly funny Brit stuff like this:


Sorry about the ribbing, Sinc. I couldn't resist. You, and the way you proclaim your Weltanschauung, have a way of inviting it.

As for the tetchy juxtaposition of 'Canadian' and 'Brit', I will state quite openly that I would not presume to have anything to say about the specifically domestic, Canadian details of this interesting topic, but you will have noticed this point, made in one of bryanc's excellent posts:



bryanc said:


> ... but the general consensus is that the scientific illiteracy of Canadians,* and Westerners in general*, is a serious social problem, and one that Journalists can help mitigate. But only if the anti-intellectual forces in our governments *and elsewhere* are not allowed to stop them.


Bryanc is bang-on correct there.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wonder if Harper is sending his "science" minister....or perhaps Dino Day



> *Geocentrists Hold Conference*
> Oh man I hope there's live blogging from this.
> 
> Found at slashdot, referencing this website:
> ...


Geocentrists Hold Conference - JREF Forum

evidence above of the consensus noted below 



> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by bryanc View Post
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc, that's about the weakest post of yours in quite some time. A stretch even for the most ardent lover of the Liberals.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> As for the tetchy juxtaposition of 'Canadian' and 'Brit', I will state quite openly that I would not presume to have anything to say about the specifically domestic, Canadian details of this interesting topic, but you will have noticed this point, made in one of bryanc's excellent posts:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's only an indication of two things, a superior "I'm special" attitude and a mockery of western Canadians. bryanc might want to take a look at general knowledge of his neighbours in that particular regard.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MannyP Design said:


> What happened here was a scientist was pissed because it took too long to be cleared. It's pretty simple.


No, what happened here was that the Canadian media was prevented from accessing Canadian scientists by the Canadian government, and had to interview scientists at foreign universities instead.

This policy does nothing to protect Canadian interests in any way, and significantly impairs the ability of Canadian scientists to communicate with the people who pay their bills.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> ...but the general consensus is that the scientific illiteracy of Canadians, and Westerners in general, is a serious social problem, and one that Journalists can help mitigate. But only if the anti-intellectual forces in our governments and elsewhere are not allowed to stop them.


Journalists, by-and-large, are already among the anti-intellectual crowd, feeding readers spoon-sized lumps of scientifically illiterate garbage. Parents need to demand that their schools place an emphasis on science and core skills for that interest to develop. You can't create a top-down fascination with science using a pop culture army.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> That's only an indication of two things, a superior "I'm special" attitude and a mockery of western Canadians. bryanc might want to take a look at general knowledge of his neighbours in that particular regard.


Certain western Canadians need to work on their reading skills.

What I wrote was: "general consensus is that the scientific illiteracy of Canadians, and Westerners in general, is a serious social problem, and one that Journalists can help mitigate."

The word "Westerners" refers to the people of the western hemisphere, which includes all of North America and western Europe. (Strictly speaking, it also covers South America and part of Africa as well, but it is generally used to refer to the North America and Europe).

And, having grown up in Edmonton, and having spent many years working at the U of A, I'm pretty confident about my appraisal of the general knowledge of my "neighbours" with regard to the natural sciences: within the University it's pretty impressive, and highly variable outside the University. What needs to be addressed is the bottom of that 'variable' spectrum.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Journalists, by-and-large, are already among the anti-intellectual crowd, feeding readers spoon-sized lumps of scientifically illiterate garbage. Parents need to demand that their schools place an emphasis on science and core skills for that interest to develop. You can't create a top-down fascination with science using a pop culture army.


I'm not sure making demands like this on the school system is going to help, given that many, if not most, "science" teachers in the school system are barely scientifically literate themselves, but it certainly wouldn't hurt.

I also agree that most of the science stories in the media are so pre-digested as to be almost meaningless. However, there have certainly been excellent "pop culture" science shows (Nova, The Nature of Things, BBC's Blue Planet series, etc.) that _have_ helped create a fascination with science, and this sort of media should be supported and encouraged in any way possible.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No argument from me on that bryanc. I own the Blue Planet series in BluRay and have long been a fan of those shows and more like them.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> No argument from me on that bryanc. I own the Blue Planet series in BluRay and have long been a fan of those shows and more like them.


That's one of the only reasons I've considered BluRay... but then I'd have to get a TV too. The HD version looks pretty good on my 27" iMac.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Certain western Canadians need to work on their reading skills.


I'll say!



bryanc said:


> The word "Westerners" refers to the people of the western hemisphere, which includes all of North America and western Europe. (Strictly speaking, it also covers South America and part of Africa as well, but it is generally used to refer to the North America and Europe)


That's exactly as I read it, bryanc, which is why I referred to it in my billet to Sinc.

The general points you make certainly reflect what happens here. This country has always had an anti-intellectual Establishment, it being composed mainly of the nobs until the recent past few decades. As for 'anti-science', I think self congratulatory pig-ignorance of science would describe the collective mind-set of our Lords and Masters.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> The general points you make certainly reflect what happens here. This country has always had an anti-intellectual Establishment, it being composed mainly of the nobs until the recent past few decades. As for 'anti-science', I think self congratulatory pig-ignorance of science would describe the collective mind-set of our Lords and Masters.


Magnus Pyke, RIP!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Magnus Pyke, RIP!


Yes ... poor old Magnus was largely regarded as a joke, unfortunately. He came across as an amiable, moth-eaten eccentric to the hoi polloi. They went for the brand, not so much for the content. He tried, he certainly tried.

Nowadays we have more 'in touch' cohort of popularisers of maths and science, but, alas, our society remains largely peasant-like in its attitudes to anything requiring thought.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Perhaps us taxpayer would be better off if government did take a cue from the private sector instead of us being at the mercy of unaccountable bureaucrats who spend OUR money like it grows on the proverbial tree and who _"don't give one iota of thought to the public good"._





Sonal said:


> It's my experience that government is usually MORE bureaucratic than the private sector.


I agree. Government bloat is a serious problem, and just seems to get worse & worse.

Which makes me think why would the government place a new policy that only adds another (unneeded) layer of bureaucracy to the research community?



SINC said:


> I suggest you think about that statement real hard before you next fill your grocery cart from a corporate grocer.


I agree, it was a blanket statement. We have a society that is very dependent on corporations to fill many of our needs. BUT, if i was to go to a corporate grocer & fill a grocery cart, i sure as hell wouldn't be able to leave the store without paying for it. Which is the primary reason they WILL fill that need. To make a profit.

Corporations exist to make money. Governments exist to serve the people. Two very different goals. My whole point is i don't see how a policy that ultimately has the effect of limiting the public knowledge of what our scientists our doing fills THAT need.



SINC said:


> Corporations must be responsible and protect the public good or you would not be here without food alone or many other things you take for granted.


Going off on a tangent here, but I can list plenty of corporations (Enron, Exxon, BP, Haliburton, Goldman Sachs, AIG, etc.....) that are certainly NOT responsible and DON'T protect the public good.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> Governments exist to serve the people. Two very different goals. My whole point is i don't see how a policy that ultimately has the effect of limiting the public knowledge of what our scientists our doing fills THAT need.


Governments exist to benefit government while paying lip service to the needs of the people. It is its own huge corporation in which we can do little more than fire the executive and board of directors from time to time.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

yes.

but i meant ideally.

lol


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> ...My whole point is i don't see how a policy that ultimately has the effect of *limiting the public knowledge of what our scientists our doing* fills THAT need.


There is absolutely no indication, other than the scaremongering by those in academia , e.g. Prof Weaver and bryanc, that this is what is happening at all. This is just making mountains out of mole hills.

Scott Dallimore the co-author was granted his interview with the media, unfortunately the Ok came too late for the journalists.

They are just being chicken little's screaming the sky if falling because their counter parts working for the Feds have to jump through different bureaucratic hoops than they do in their ivory towers, boo hoo.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Governments exist to benefit government while paying lip service to the needs of the people. It is its own huge corporation in which we can do little more than fire the executive and board of directors from time to time.


 In my opinion the reason brynac drew our attention to this issue is outline in the above quote.

Government should, even as an employer never act this way. When it come to policy matters the message has to be controlled. Agreed.

When it come to science, a matter of data, reproducible facts, it should not.

Our government is not owned by anyone but by all. We own the assets but we allow others to represent us and another group manage our assets.

In my opinion too many business school graduates are in control and can only regurgitate what they learned in school to look after a business.

Government is not business. 

Business does not and has never looked out for the public good.

The belief in the inherent “good” of corporations by many here boggles my mind.

brynac is correct, IMO, we should be outraged by the manglers of public polices we should protest these policy wonks, we as citizens need a better method, perhaps a bigger boot to our collective representative’s ar$e.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> In my opinion the reason brynac drew our attention to this issue is outline in the above quote.
> 
> Government should, even as an employer never act this way. When it come to policy matters the message has to be controlled. Agreed.
> 
> ...


So you are saying that just because science is involved a subordinate does not have to clear it with his superiors to speak to the media? Why? The point has been made time and again there is in fact no muzzling going on here, it is a matter of clearing with your superiors before doing so and possibly having a given message vetted. You are all chasing after boogie men in the shadows.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> So you are saying that just because science is involved a subordinate does not have to clear it with his superiors to speak to the media? Why? The point has been made time and again there is in fact no muzzling going on here, it is a matter of clearing with your superiors before doing so and possibly having a given message vetted. You are all chasing after boogie men in the shadows.


Why? Because some policy wonk says?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> In my opinion the reason brynac drew our attention to this issue is outline in the above quote.
> 
> Government should, even as an employer never act this way. When it come to policy matters the message has to be controlled. Agreed.
> 
> ...


Ahh that tired old line again. The Government of Canada owns the assets, we just pay for them. There is no entity legally or otherwise known as "the people of Canada". There is a legal entity, known as the Government of Canada. If you really believe what you are saying try going to the National Gallery and take a little paint chip off of a painting and say as they are throwing you in the police cruiser "I am just taking my share" and see where that gets you.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Why? Because some policy wonk says?


Because it is a matter of reported fact as to what happened.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Why? Because some policy wonk says?


No, because that is what actually happens. I have helped facilitate a large number of contacts with NRC scientists over the past five years, and not a single one of them will make a statement without clearing it with their handlers first--even on studies that have been widely published, or for which they have already been interviewed.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Government should, even as an employer never act this way. When it come to policy matters the message has to be controlled. Agreed.
> 
> When it come to science, a matter of data, reproducible facts, it should not.
> 
> Our government is not owned by anyone but by all. We own the assets but we allow others to represent us and another group manage our assets.


So if you believe government should have no oversight or censure on data its scientists produce, how would you feel if a government scientist made a discovery that in the wrong hands, could be deadly to millions and he wished to go public with his findings? If you truly believe the principle that scientists should never be muzzled and we have a right to know their findings, should government have no control over dissemination of that information as well?
Obviously this isn't comparable to discovering an ancient flood but it tests the principle of total scientific freedom with the media.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Obviously this isn't comparable to discovering an ancient flood but it tests the principle of total scientific freedom with the media.


You've got a point here. But your caveat is very important. We're not talking about the government keeping the science from being disseminated, but rather from them preventing Canadians from hearing about it. The paper was published back in April, and the members of the research group that aren't Canadian were available to the press to talk about it.

I can certainly accept that there are exceptions; scientists working for secret government weapons research labs are obviously not going to be allowed to talk to the media.

The fact that this is a new policy enacted by the Harper government just underscores their penchant for secrecy and opacity, and their desire to keep Canadians ignorant.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> You've got a point here. But your caveat is very important. We're not talking about the government keeping the science from being disseminated, but rather from them preventing Canadians from hearing about it. The paper was published back in April, and the members of the research group that aren't Canadian were available to the press to talk about it.


They didn't even prevent Canadians from hearing about it. The news outlet lost interest because it had to wait a couple of days.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> They didn't even prevent Canadians from hearing about it. The news outlet lost interest because it had to wait a couple of days.


As I understand it, they didn't loose interest, but gave up on trying to interview the Canadian scientist because researchers in other countries were available to be interviewed without having to go through all the government hurdles.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> As I understand it, they didn't loose interest, but gave up on trying to interview the Canadian scientist because researchers in other countries were available to be interviewed without having to go through all the government hurdles.


So like most people, the reporters picked the easiest path to the story they wanted.

The story got told. In this instance, does it necessarily matter WHO took part in telling it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I generally find that the U.S. has better media clearance programs than does Canada. Reporters can arrange 10 interviews with people in any discipline in the U.S. in the time it takes to line up one Canadian. This has nothing to do with the discipline involved-it's just a different approach to media savvy.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> The story got told. In this instance, does it necessarily matter WHO took part in telling it?


From the point of view of the story, no. But I think we, as Canadians, ought to be unhappy with our government for preventing Canadian journalists from having access to Canadian scientists. Making Canadian journalists contact British scientists about a 'made-in-Canada' discovery is just lame.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> From the point of view of the story, no. But I think we, as *Canadians, ought to be unhappy with our government for preventing Canadian journalists from having access to Canadian scientists. Making Canadian journalists contact British scientists about a 'made-in-Canada' discovery is just lame.*


You keep spreading disinformation, it isn't the case. Scott Dallimore got his clearance from his superiors, unfortunately it came too late.The other scientists worked for universities which have a different bureaucracy and response time due the size of said bureaucracy. Maybe next time Dallimore will apply for it in advance of being contacted by the media and be prepared so he can meet the media's deadline. Lesson learned.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> From the point of view of the story, no. But I think we, as Canadians, ought to be unhappy with our government for preventing Canadian journalists from having access to Canadian scientists. Making Canadian journalists contact British scientists about a 'made-in-Canada' discovery is just lame.


Yep, just about as lame as a pee'd off scientist making mountains out of molehills. It IS policy and HAS BEEN for decades for all civil servants. Best get used to the idea that scientists in the employ of the government aren't "special", just lacky civil servants like thousands of others.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> It IS policy and HAS BEEN for decades for all civil servants.


Not according to the article. This is new policy.



> The documents say the "new" rules went into force in March and reveal how they apply to not only to contentious issues including the oilsands, but benign subjects such as floods that occurred 13,000 years ago.
> 
> They also give a glimpse of how Canadians are being cut off from scientists whose work is financed by taxpayers, critics say, and is often of significant public interest -- be it about fish stocks, genetically modified crops or mercury pollution in the Athabasca River.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Not according to the article. This is new policy.





> The documents say the "new" rules went into force in March and reveal how they apply to not only to contentious issues including the oilsands, but benign subjects such as floods that occurred 13,000 years ago.
> 
> *They also give a glimpse of how Canadians are being cut off from scientists whose work is financed by taxpayers, critics say, and is often of significant public interest -- be it about fish stocks, genetically modified crops or mercury pollution in the Athabasca River.*


More FUD. How does anyone know this is true? If it is true that this is "new" policy (as opposed to generally accepted protocol, which is what I suspect it was and is only new in now terms of written policy) as of March where is there any indication whether or not any other issues have been handled in a similar manner. Even if there were others, based on what we know from this case, the scientist was not denied speaking to the media but only that his permission came too late for the journalist's deadline.

FUD. FUD. FUD.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Here is another point. The researchers results have been published, they are on the record and so would be the case for any other published research by Fed employee scientists. If the "official vetted message" was in any way contrary to the findings of the published research do you not think the media would be on it like white on rice???

This is simply a matter of protocol and chain of command and the media and government critics making mountains out of mole hills.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

bryanc said:


> From the point of view of the story, no. But I think we, as Canadians, ought to be unhappy with our government for preventing Canadian journalists from having access to Canadian scientists. Making Canadian journalists contact British scientists about a 'made-in-Canada' discovery is just lame.


They didn't prevent anything. It was an unfortunate set of circumstances and that's it. What's REALLY lame is throwing around words like "Orwellian".

In the end Canada still got credit, the story was told, and the research still made it to the masses.

Hooray!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> How does anyone know this is true?


I admit, I'm taking the facts of the story as printed by the Vancouver Sun to be correct. I have not verified them myself, but, as this was the major point of the piece, and because it is entirely consistent with my perception of the Harper Government, I will accept the facts as presented unless given evidence to the contrary.

To be honest, I'd be happy to be proved wrong on this. If you (or anyone else) can show me evidence that the Harper administration has not changed its policy to make it harder for scientists to communicate (i.e. that the Vancouver Sun has it wrong), I'll happily retract my complaint.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I admit, I'm taking the facts of the story as printed by the Vancouver Sun to be correct.


Well, there's your problem!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

The usual suspects M.O. Harper is RIGHT. You prove the him wrong.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> The usual suspects M.O. Harper is RIGHT. You prove the him wrong.


Why do you bother with these posts? They add nothing to a reasonable debate. They are nothing more than a juvenile attempt at belittling your opponents comments. Do you not see that comments like this merely prove the adage that when you point your finger at someone else three are pointing back at you?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> Why do you bother with these posts? They add nothing to a reasonable debate. They are nothing more than a juvenile attempt at belittling your opponents comments. Do you not see that comments like this merely prove the adage that when you point your finger at someone else three are pointing back at you?


Clearly he's a student of Bush's ideology that _If you're not with us, you're against us_. :lmao:


----------

