Canadian Scientists March in Ottawa

[Negated]

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scientists-take-aim-at-harper-cuts-with-death-of-evidence-protest-on-parliament-hill/article4403233/

And some insights from across the Atlantic: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/09/canada-stephen-harper-revolt-scientists?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

The war on science by the Canadian Conservative government has been on for some time. The government issued a media protocol that blocks government scientists from talking to the media without approval. Research funding is reduced and redirected to research for "applied science", with environmental research seemingly targeted. In the latest budget bill, a number of research funds are axed, including some irreplaceable research stations in the north that provide vital data to climate science. It's good to see scientists finally making some noise to draw public attention.

It is worrying that we still have over 3 years of Conservative majority. That's plenty of time for them to do even more damage.

[stevey_frac]

Group of people complain when funding reduced by fiscally conservative government. People shocked at this expected turn of events. More at 6:00.

Are the conservatives also at war with war? (1000 jobs cut at the DND...)

[madd0ct0r]

well, it's not just the reduced budget - there's also the muzzling of non-ideologically aligned statements - for a group of people based on info sharing and published results, that's a bit of a kick in the balls.

[stevey_frac]

As far as I am aware, no one has ever been prevented from publishing a result in a scientific journal. Canadian scientists publish work, teach, and give interviews all the time. Most of the hubub has been about a particular scientist specializing in B.C. fisheries, whom a handful of pushy journalists wanted to get an interview with while she was in the middle of an inquiry. It's fairly reasonable to me that that department didn't want to get pulled into a maelstrom of political controversy, and so opted not to get involved.

[Arrian]

As far as I am aware, no one has ever been prevented from publishing a result in a scientific journal. Canadian scientists publish work, teach, and give interviews all the time. Most of the hubub has been about a particular scientist specializing in B.C. fisheries, whom a handful of pushy journalists wanted to get an interview with while she was in the middle of an inquiry. It's fairly reasonable to me that that department didn't want to get pulled into a maelstrom of political controversy, and so opted not to get involved.

I can understand that, every private employer I've had has had a policy that employees aren't to represent the company or talk about their job to an audience (newspapers, TV, and now social media) without getting approval first. It seems reasonable that a government as an employer would have a similar policy and while someone may be a scientist, if they're working for the government, their science is a work product done for the government.

[The Great Hippo]

I can understand that, every private employer I've had has had a policy that employees aren't to represent the company or talk about their job to an audience (newspapers, TV, and now social media) without getting approval first. It seems reasonable that a government as an employer would have a similar policy and while someone may be a scientist, if they're working for the government, their science is a work product done for the government.

Not that it necessarily applies to this situation, but keep in mind--the government is not a private business. It's a public business (i.e., its primary 'shareholders' are the voters). While a private business may be within its rights to exercise 'spin control' by preventing its employees from talking to the media 'off-the-cuff', I don't think this same mentality should necessarily apply to government employees--if anything, this just deepens the notion that government organizations serve themselves rather than the people.

[Arrian]

Not that it necessarily applies to this situation, but keep in mind--the government is not a private business. It's a public business (i.e., its primary 'shareholders' are the voters). While a private business may be within its rights to exercise 'spin control' by preventing its employees from talking to the media 'off-the-cuff', I don't think this same mentality should necessarily apply to government employees--if anything, this just deepens the notion that government organizations serve themselves rather than the people.

I agree that there should be whistleblower protections for government employees, just like there are for private employees. And government employees should be able to express their own opinions, even on issues that relate to their jobs. But when they represent themselves as agents or employees of the government, I think it's reasonable for their employer to vet what they say in public.

There's a difference between saying "I have a Ph. D. in ecology and I think fisheries should be managed this way," and saying "I'm a Ph. D. in ecology working for the fisheries management agency of the federal government and I think fisheries should be managed this way." The latter implies that your opinion reflects at least the potential opinion of the agency whether or not it actually is, the former only implies that your opinion is informed by science. If what you're saying in public implies a position your employer is taking related to what they do for their business, I think it's reasonable that your employer has the option to censor that.

Conversely, saying "I work at the fisheries department and the work environment sucks," should be fair game because, while it's about the employer, it's not a statement relating to their line of business and is also obviously a personal opinion, not something that can be confused for a representation of the employer's policy.

[The Great Hippo]

I agree that there should be whistleblower protections for government employees, just like there are for private employees. And government employees should be able to express their own opinions, even on issues that relate to their jobs. But when they represent themselves as agents or employees of the government, I think it's reasonable for their employer to vet what they say in public.

There's a difference between saying "I have a Ph. D. in ecology and I think fisheries should be managed this way," and saying "I'm a Ph. D. in ecology working for the fisheries management agency of the federal government and I think fisheries should be managed this way." The latter implies that your opinion reflects at least the potential opinion of the agency whether or not it actually is, the former only implies that your opinion is informed by science. If what you're saying in public implies a position your employer is taking related to what they do for their business, I think it's reasonable that your employer has the option to censor that.

Conversely, saying "I work at the fisheries department and the work environment sucks," should be fair game because, while it's about the employer, it's not a statement relating to their line of business and is also obviously a personal opinion, not something that can be confused for a representation of the employer's policy.

Oh, I agree, in so far as much as employees of the government shouldn't be allowed to misrepresent themselves as speaking for the government. I just wanted to point out that there's a few important differences, and compelling reasons why we should prevent government agencies from 'muting' their employees--reasons that don't exist in private businesses. Unlike privately owned businesses, we always want to maximize transparency, so it makes sense to protect an employee's right to say what they want so long as it doesn't involve misrepresentation ("I speak for the entire agency!") or a misuse of taxpayer's resources.

[stevey_frac]

Oh, I agree, in so far as much as employees of the government shouldn't be allowed to misrepresent themselves as speaking for the government. I just wanted to point out that there's a few important differences, and compelling reasons why we should prevent government agencies from 'muting' their employees--reasons that don't exist in private businesses. Unlike privately owned businesses, we always want to maximize transparency, so it makes sense to protect an employee's right to say what they want so long as it doesn't involve misrepresentation ("I speak for the entire agency!") or a misuse of taxpayer's resources.

I question the idea that maximum transparency is always the ideal case in all government research. Think about that. The media starts reporting interesting preliminary results, that are incorrect, but take decades to leave the realm of common knowledge. People who want to fight against the research can turn around and intentionally misinterpret emails sent between colleagues in the worst possible way. This world is not one I want to live in. I'd much prefer a reasonable amount of transparency, yearly updates on public expenditure, and the ability to read published works.

We aren't stopping scientists from talking to other scientists, or from publishing their work. We mostly stopped one woman from talking to the press about a publicly contentious issue of salmon farming before the courts had a chance to deal with the matter. The worst complaint I've heard is that it can sometimes takes a few weeks to get an interview, which the media bitches about because by then the story may have passed. That's what this is really about. Media corporation profits are being potentially impacted. I'm relatively OK with the media not being able to demand access to federally funded scientists whenever the hell they feel like it, simply because they are federally funded.

[cpt]

We aren't stopping scientists from talking to other scientists, or from publishing their work. We mostly stopped one woman from talking to the press about a publicly contentious issue of salmon farming before the courts had a chance to deal with the matter. The worst complaint I've heard is that it can sometimes takes a few weeks to get an interview, which the media bitches about because by then the story may have passed. That's what this is really about. Media corporation profits are being potentially impacted. I'm relatively OK with the media not being able to demand access to federally funded scientists whenever the hell they feel like it, simply because they are federally funded.

Some of the anger leading to this march that I've heard of personally from federal government scientists is of the type (and I'm paraphrasing) "They cut a lot of important research and technical positions (e.g. in Environment Canada), making it impossible for us to do our jobs well, but we can't complain about it. Us not complaining makes it seem like we don't think it's a big deal, so we think it's really shitty that we can't speak out."

[LaserGuy]

We aren't stopping scientists from talking to other scientists, or from publishing their work. We mostly stopped one woman from talking to the press about a publicly contentious issue of salmon farming before the courts had a chance to deal with the matter. The worst complaint I've heard is that it can sometimes takes a few weeks to get an interview, which the media bitches about because by then the story may have passed. That's what this is really about. Media corporation profits are being potentially impacted. I'm relatively OK with the media not being able to demand access to federally funded scientists whenever the hell they feel like it, simply because they are federally funded.

The free press is supposed to act as a check against government power and a vehicle to deliver useful and timely information to the populace. Allowing the government to censor views or ideas that go against its interests or ideology is hugely detrimental to the nation as a whole. The government has no business telling any public servant that they can't give an interview--their employers are the people of Canada, and the people are entitled to hear what they have to say.

[Iulus Cofield]

We aren't stopping scientists from talking to other scientists, or from publishing their work. We mostly stopped one woman from talking to the press about a publicly contentious issue of salmon farming before the courts had a chance to deal with the matter. The worst complaint I've heard is that it can sometimes takes a few weeks to get an interview, which the media bitches about because by then the story may have passed. That's what this is really about. Media corporation profits are being potentially impacted. I'm relatively OK with the media not being able to demand access to federally funded scientists whenever the hell they feel like it, simply because they are federally funded.

The free press is supposed to act as a check against government power and a vehicle to deliver useful and timely information to the populace. Allowing the government to censor views or ideas that go against its interests or ideology is hugely detrimental to the nation as a whole. The government has no business telling any public servant that they can't give an interview--their employers are the people of Canada, and the people are entitled to hear what they have to say.

You remind me of a reporter. When it comes to, say, a government agency investigating someone for a crime, do you think the government employees should be able to give public up to the minute reports under any circumstance? What if the investigation so far makes it look like Laura Bush killed a guy (remember, Laura Bush killed a guy.), but three days later the investigators have confirm Laura Bush has an airtight alibi? With enough media coverage, such a situation can cause a permanent defamation, immune to being prosecuted as slander, but a simple policy of "We're not allowed to comment until the investigation is concluded" only damages the bottom line of irresponsible media outlets.

Not that I'm saying government employees should usually be able to speak their minds publicly, just that I can think of a half dozen situations off the top of my head when it's a pretty good idea they should temporarily be restricted.

[LaserGuy]

We aren't stopping scientists from talking to other scientists, or from publishing their work. We mostly stopped one woman from talking to the press about a publicly contentious issue of salmon farming before the courts had a chance to deal with the matter. The worst complaint I've heard is that it can sometimes takes a few weeks to get an interview, which the media bitches about because by then the story may have passed. That's what this is really about. Media corporation profits are being potentially impacted. I'm relatively OK with the media not being able to demand access to federally funded scientists whenever the hell they feel like it, simply because they are federally funded.

The free press is supposed to act as a check against government power and a vehicle to deliver useful and timely information to the populace. Allowing the government to censor views or ideas that go against its interests or ideology is hugely detrimental to the nation as a whole. The government has no business telling any public servant that they can't give an interview--their employers are the people of Canada, and the people are entitled to hear what they have to say.

You remind me of a reporter. When it comes to, say, a government agency investigating someone for a crime, do you think the government employees should be able to give public up to the minute reports under any circumstance? What if the investigation so far makes it look like Laura Bush killed a guy (remember, Laura Bush killed a guy.), but three days later the investigators have confirm Laura Bush has an airtight alibi? With enough media coverage, such a situation can cause a permanent defamation, immune to being prosecuted as slander, but a simple policy of "We're not allowed to comment until the investigation is concluded" only damages the bottom line of irresponsible media outlets.

Not that I'm saying government employees should usually be able to speak their minds publicly, just that I can think of a half dozen situations off the top of my head when it's a pretty good idea they should temporarily be restricted.

And do you think that the government should be the ones to decide when that information gets released? Or that it just gets released when the report is finished? I mean, if Laura Bush had killed a guy, would it have been all right for George Bush to get the choice of whether or not that story goes public? Because it's the latter situation in Canada right now.

[edit]Just to be perfectly clear, the government is not allowing scientists to comment on published work. It's more of a situation like this:
Reporter: "Hey, Dr. Scientist, I saw that you got a cover story on Nature about something to do with global warming, but I don't really understand it. Can you explain some things about the article for me so I can write it up in my local paper?"
Scientist: "I need to get my briefing notes from a public relations officer. I will get back to you in six weeks, or maybe never if the government isn't happy with my results."
Reporter: "Fuck it, I'm not doing this story after all."

[Chen]

I'd be far more concerned about this if science media reporting was worth a shit at all. Rather we usually just get sensationalist headlines about a new FACT and then a article which describes how it may be true in some obscure circumstances or how people may not even be sure it actually is true.

[Puppyclaws]

I'd be far more concerned about this if science media reporting was worth a shit at all. Rather we usually just get sensationalist headlines about a new FACT and then a article which describes how it may be true in some obscure circumstances or how people may not even be sure it actually is true.

Frankly, this is what a considerable number of scientific journal articles read like as well, so it is hardly surprising that the reporting on them is no different.

On the larger issue, the government should be able to censure scientists who present themselves as government officials in giving their take, perhaps, but otherwise I really can't understand the position that there are things they should not be talking about.

a simple policy of "We're not allowed to comment until the investigation is concluded" only damages the bottom line of irresponsible media outlets.

And, you know, the public-- who don't get to hear the scientific take on the issue and weigh in on it until after it has been decided. Frankly, that sort of statement applies to legal cases where protection of the individual is at stake, but that is so obviously not what we are talking about that it's irrelevant. Also, I know we already have laws like that in the US, and I would imagine they exist in Canada. I can't see how there is any applicability when discussing salmon farms.

[stevey_frac]

And, you know, the public-- who don't get to hear the scientific take on the issue and weigh in on it until after it has been decided. Frankly, that sort of statement applies to legal cases where protection of the individual is at stake, but that is so obviously not what we are talking about that it's irrelevant. Also, I know we already have laws like that in the US, and I would imagine they exist in Canada. I can't see how there is any applicability when discussing salmon farms.

They don't apply in the case of salmon farms. However, it's not all that unreasonable for a governmental organization to say something along the lines of 'This is a bit of political dynamite, lets not poke it to see if it explodes all over our faces'.

The public, and the reporters have access to the published article. So, we can 'weigh in on it' as much as we want. Denying an interview is a long way from 'The government decides what information should get released'. The information was released. Publicly, even.

You see, there are two sides of this discussion. One is that pro fish-farm lobby. One is the traditional fishing lobby. And since they make a really large amount of money between them, no one really wants to get caught in the middle.

Here's the article in question btw:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6014/214.short

The zinger is at the end of the abstract: "Functional analysis raises the possibility that the mortality-related signature reflects a viral infection." This strongly implies that fish farming is causing a problem. This was likely to be unpopular, so they told her not to talk to reporters about it. That seems perfectly reasonable. Reporters can read the published report, and come up with the own conclusions without tricking a quote out of the federal scientist in question.

[Negated]

And, you know, the public-- who don't get to hear the scientific take on the issue and weigh in on it until after it has been decided. Frankly, that sort of statement applies to legal cases where protection of the individual is at stake, but that is so obviously not what we are talking about that it's irrelevant. Also, I know we already have laws like that in the US, and I would imagine they exist in Canada. I can't see how there is any applicability when discussing salmon farms.

They don't apply in the case of salmon farms. However, it's not all that unreasonable for a governmental organization to say something along the lines of 'This is a bit of political dynamite, lets not poke it to see if it explodes all over our faces'.

The public, and the reporters have access to the published article. So, we can 'weigh in on it' as much as we want. Denying an interview is a long way from 'The government decides what information should get released'. The information was released. Publicly, even.

You see, there are two sides of this discussion. One is that pro fish-farm lobby. One is the traditional fishing lobby. And since they make a really large amount of money between them, no one really wants to get caught in the middle.

Here's the article in question btw:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6014/214.short

The zinger is at the end of the abstract: "Functional analysis raises the possibility that the mortality-related signature reflects a viral infection." This strongly implies that fish farming is causing a problem. This was likely to be unpopular, so they told her not to talk to reporters about it. That seems perfectly reasonable. Reporters can read the published report, and come up with the own conclusions without tricking a quote out of the federal scientist in question.

Perhaps you have a different order of priorities than mine. But in most cases, with exception that the topic endangers public safety or interest, I believe that research done with taxpayers' money should be made as publicly accessible as possible. This includes allowing reporters simple access to the scientists who performed the research. The interest of the political party in power should not be part of the equation at all. Of course it is reasonable to the officials to block access to the scientist when they prefer the public to not hear about it, but the interest of the officials do not necessarily align with the public.

I don't buy your argument that the availability of the research paper alone is sufficient. Most of the general public do not read scientific research papers. We have to rely on reporters to write on what the new discovery is about. This work is not simply a translation of technical terms into layman terms. These articles typically touch on what are the significance, the implications, the impacts of such research. These are things that may not be in the paper, and are best answered by the researchers themselves.

[LaserGuy]

And, you know, the public-- who don't get to hear the scientific take on the issue and weigh in on it until after it has been decided. Frankly, that sort of statement applies to legal cases where protection of the individual is at stake, but that is so obviously not what we are talking about that it's irrelevant. Also, I know we already have laws like that in the US, and I would imagine they exist in Canada. I can't see how there is any applicability when discussing salmon farms.

They don't apply in the case of salmon farms. However, it's not all that unreasonable for a governmental organization to say something along the lines of 'This is a bit of political dynamite, lets not poke it to see if it explodes all over our faces'.

The public, and the reporters have access to the published article. So, we can 'weigh in on it' as much as we want. Denying an interview is a long way from 'The government decides what information should get released'. The information was released. Publicly, even.

You see, there are two sides of this discussion. One is that pro fish-farm lobby. One is the traditional fishing lobby. And since they make a really large amount of money between them, no one really wants to get caught in the middle.

Here's the article in question btw:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6014/214.short

The zinger is at the end of the abstract: "Functional analysis raises the possibility that the mortality-related signature reflects a viral infection." This strongly implies that fish farming is causing a problem. This was likely to be unpopular, so they told her not to talk to reporters about it. That seems perfectly reasonable. Reporters can read the published report, and come up with the own conclusions without tricking a quote out of the federal scientist in question.

So... there's a public policy debate going on about fish farming. Government scientists discover evidence that is pertinent to the matter at hand and is in the public interest to disclose, but are refused to do so by government censors. I'm failing to see why you think this is a good thing for anybody. Why does the popularity of facts matter at all?

[stevey_frac]

So... there's a public policy debate going on about fish farming. Government scientists discover evidence that is pertinent to the matter at hand and is in the public interest to disclose, but are refused to do so by government censors. I'm failing to see why you think this is a good thing for anybody. Why does the popularity of facts matter at all?

For example, if a scientist does a study and finds that global warming is not as bad as originally thought, do you think it is in the public interest to disclose this study? The study may, or may not be fact. Studies are wrong all the time. Papers are wrong all the time.

The public is not in a good position to decide the merits of this hypothetical study, and the publishers of this study are likely to be biased as hell with regards to it, and it would massively discredit all other research that this particular government research institution might produce, up to and including demanding inquests, demanding it be shut down, protesters attacking employees who work there. In this situation, I think we could all agree that it would be a bad idea to take this to the press and run with it, for damned near everyone involved, including the public.

It's not at all as clear cut as you are making it.

The popularity of the facts matter, because what is popular turns into what is political.

Keep in mind, that this is mostly about this one thing that occurred, and a handful of other incidences that happened. Not a blanket 'Thou shalt not' for all research interviews. Canadian researchers give interviews all the time. The media is just bitching about that one time.

Also, This is what real censorship looks like, care of North Carolina

[Negated]

For example, if a scientist does a study and finds that global warming is not as bad as originally thought, do you think it is in the public interest to disclose this study? The study may, or may not be fact. Studies are wrong all the time. Papers are wrong all the time.

The public is not in a good position to decide the merits of this hypothetical study, and the publishers of this study are likely to be biased as hell with regards to it, and it would massively discredit all other research that this particular government research institution might produce, up to and including demanding inquests, demanding it be shut down, protesters attacking employees who work there. In this situation, I think we could all agree that it would be a bad idea to take this to the press and run with it, for damned near everyone involved, including the public.

It's not at all as clear cut as you are making it.

The popularity of the facts matter, because what is popular turns into what is political.

Keep in mind, that this is mostly about this one thing that occurred, and a handful of other incidences that happened. Not a blanket 'Thou shalt not' for all research interviews. Canadian researchers give interviews all the time. The media is just bitching about that one time.

Also, This is what real censorship looks like, care of North Carolina

You are just blowing all the potential negatives out of proportion to make censorship look like a sensible idea that may be good for the public. This is the sort of arguments Chinese government like to use all the time, like "free speech is harmful to a harmonious society" and dozens of similar variations.

A scientific research may come to a wrong conclusion. But so what? This is the very nature of scientific research. All studies are refutable as new evidences appear and other studies come up. If the researchers are biased, other experts in the field will be quick to point out. This is called peer review. Unless the reporter is utterly incompetent, he will certainly pick up the opposing views as well. There is absolutely no need for a government official to decide whether the study has merit, nor should that be their job at all.

Your argument also presumes that government officials are better at judging whether the research is good for the public than the public itself, which in all likelihood, is false. The officials have a particular political agenda in mind, and they are in position to benefit from controlling the media's access to government scientists. Since their interests do not necessarily align with the public interest, it is almost never a good thing when that happens.

[stevey_frac]

Because clearly, The Canadian government asking one reporter to not talk about fish until after the inquest is exactly the same as Chinese repression of free speech.

Strawman much?

It seems reasonable to me for a government official to say, publish that paper, and lets hold off on publicizing those results until we're damned sure.

Also, the idea that if the author doesn't talk to the press, that the implications of their results are unfathomable is laughable.

We have these things called 'Universities'. These are filled by experts with 'PHD's' that make them uniquely qualified to talk about implications of studies. Also, your faith in the quality of science reporting is cute.

[LaserGuy]

Because clearly, The Canadian government asking one reporter to not talk about fish until after the inquest is exactly the same as Chinese repression of free speech.

Strawman much?

It seems reasonable to me for a government official to say, publish that paper, and lets hold off on publicizing those results until we're damned sure.

Also, the idea that if the author doesn't talk to the press, that the implications of their results are unfathomable is laughable.

We have these things called 'Universities'. These are filled by experts with 'PHD's' that make them uniquely qualified to talk about implications of studies. Also, your faith in the quality of science reporting is cute.

Government scientists are also experts in their fields with PhDs, just so you know... They are also uniquely qualified to talk about the implications of studies, particularly, say, studies that they personally publish. This is exactly why they should be the ones who are talking about those studies, what their implications are, how strong the data is, etc. and not leaving the job in the hands of some bureaucrat who has no clue what the study is about.

Don't you see how what you're proposing could be easily abused? I mean, what if the government decides "We want fish farms", and therefore allows any scientist who has results in support of fish farms to get press for their findings, while suppressing the results of those with contradictory findings (even if those findings were, say, a majority), and therefore giving the illusion that the government's position is well-supported when it is in fact not well-supported?

[stevey_frac]

Cool slippery slope you have there.

We have a scientist who published a paper, and was asked not to talk to the press, not a systematic pattern of abuse and repressive behavior.

[LaserGuy]

Cool slippery slope you have there.

We have a scientist who published a paper, and was asked not to talk to the press, not a systematic pattern of abuse and repressive behavior.

Uh... no. It is a systematic problem. Here's two articles from Nature, one of the leading scientific journals, discussing the problem. One of them predates your fish farming story by about six months, btw.

[stevey_frac]

The one article complains that the delay can be as much as 4-5 days, and complains about that, in light of the '24 hour news cycle'.

Seriously. Still ok with it. Still seems like media bitching about the fact that they can't instantly pull a government physicist off an experiment and badger him / her with questions.

And I read the articles a few days ago, and I don't think it EVER says anywhere that they denied anyone interviews actually. Just that there was some pencil pushers who dotted some T's first. Probably why the 'fish farm' story is the leading story in this case, because they denied an interview request until after the public inquiry.

Either way, if this is the government being evil, they really suck at it.