Conservative War On Science

[segnosaur]

You keep harping on "climate science" as an area where scientists can and should speak... but I can think of other areas where more caution is warranted. For example, I'd hate to think of one lone anti-vax doctor to have their views seen as representing public policy when they are in the minority.

A horrible example. No one in the research community took any of these claims seriously.

First of all, I assume you're referring to Wakefield (the guy who claimed vaccines were linked to autism, based in part on research he falsified). However, I wasn't referring specifically to him, but to a hypothetical case. (There have been relevant cases, but I didn't want to get bogged down in the details.)

Secondly, your claim that "no one in the research community too these claims seriously" is actually the point I was trying to make... There may indeed be issues where the "research community" does indeed have problems with research. But you're claiming you want researchers to talk directly to the public. Its situations like that that can cause a crackpot (like Wakefield) to have bogus research portrayed as "government approved" even if others (or the majority of other scientists employed by the government) recognize it as faulty.

[Evening Star]

Its situations like that that can cause a crackpot (like Wakefield) to have bogus research portrayed as "government approved" even if others (or the majority of other scientists employed by the government) recognize it as faulty.

It seems like it should be quite easy for other scientists or higher-ranking people in the ministry to then contradict one rogue scientist's claims in cases like this.

Segnosaur, you're obviously right that this policy doesn't impact communication within the scientific community but ToadBrother has made what are IMO excellent points about how publicly funded scientists should be able to communicate to the public via the mainstream media without needing political approval. That is what is being threatened by this policy and it is important.

[dre]

First of all, I assume you're referring to Wakefield (the guy who claimed vaccines were linked to autism, based in part on research he falsified). However, I wasn't referring specifically to him, but to a hypothetical case. (There have been relevant cases, but I didn't want to get bogged down in the details.)

Secondly, your claim that "no one in the research community too these claims seriously" is actually the point I was trying to make... There may indeed be issues where the "research community" does indeed have problems with research. But you're claiming you want researchers to talk directly to the public. Its situations like that that can cause a crackpot (like Wakefield) to have bogus research portrayed as "government approved" even if others (or the majority of other scientists employed by the government) recognize it as faulty.

Scenarios as you describe may happen, and people might speak out of turn once in a while, or make incorrect or misleading statements. But so what? I certainly dont see any evidence of this being a big issue. Id rather have that scenario play out once in a while than implement rigid controls on scientists talking to the press.

Seems retarded and pointless to me.

The area where RULES are badly needed is the overclassification of data and documents by the government, and theyre continued attempts to escape tranparency.

What grounds does the government have for removing our access to these civil servants?

Edited September 13, 2010 by dre

[segnosaur]

Its situations like that that can cause a crackpot (like Wakefield) to have bogus research portrayed as "government approved" even if others (or the majority of other scientists employed by the government) recognize it as faulty.

Scenarios as you describe may happen, and people might speak out of turn once in a while, or make incorrect or misleading statements. But so what?

Well, in an extreme case (e.g. in issues of health) such misleading statements can cause unnecessary fears. In the vaccination example, it could cause people to avoid getting immunized, leading to possible death.

Again, that is an extreme case. I doubt it would happen very often. But the repercussions can be serious.

At this point, I have no opinion about whether the policy is good or bad. I see advantages and disadvantages to it. But I do feel that many of the complaints against the policy are based more in rhetoric than anything else, and so far the discussion (as portrayed in the article) has been completely one sided.

[segnosaur]

It seems like it should be quite easy for other scientists or higher-ranking people in the ministry to then contradict one rogue scientist's claims in cases like this.

You think it would be, but its not.

First of all, there's no guarantee that any main stream media reporter will actually talk to other scientists. (After all, sensationalism sells... And having an article with a headline proclaiming "Government Scientist finds sex causes spontaneous human combustion" will sell a lot more papers than one that proclaims "Everything safe."

Secondly, our recent experiences suggest that that is not necessarily the case. For example, we've had study after study, and scientist after scientist pointing out the safety of vaccines. Yet there are still idiots who listen to quacks like Wakefield and Mercola.

Segnosaur, you're obviously right that this policy doesn't impact communication within the scientific community...

THANK YOU. After so many posts its nice to see that someone actually has figured out what I was saying.

...but ToadBrother has made what are IMO excellent points about how publicly funded scientists should be able to communicate to the public via the mainstream media without needing political approval. That is what is being threatened by this policy and it is important.

Yes, publicly funded scientists have their media access limited. Is it bad? Maybe. Its also possible that the issue is overhyped and the result of a lot of rhetoric.

Is it impeding scientific progress? No, scientists can still communicate with each other.

Is it preventing dissemination of information to the public? Debatable, since the forums where such information is presented are usually of public record (peer reviewed journals and/or conferences). Yeah, individual scientists may not be able to communicate their findings directly, but the information is still getting out there.

[Evening Star]

You think it would be, but its not.

First of all, there's no guarantee that any main stream media reporter will actually talk to other scientists. (After all, sensationalism sells... And having an article with a headline proclaiming "Government Scientist finds sex causes spontaneous human combustion" will sell a lot more papers than one that proclaims "Everything safe."

When has something like this happened, that mainstream scientific opinion was totally neglected by the press in favour of a fringe view? Interference by politicians is a much more dangerous threat to public information.

Secondly, our recent experiences suggest that that is not necessarily the case. For example, we've had study after study, and scientist after scientist pointing out the safety of vaccines. Yet there are still idiots who listen to quacks like Wakefield and Mercola.

But the point is that the more mainstream scientific information did get out and was heard and accepted by the majority. Quacks will always find some audience and they have a right to!

Is it preventing dissemination of information to the public? Debatable, since the forums where such information is presented are usually of public record (peer reviewed journals and/or conferences). Yeah, individual scientists may not be able to communicate their findings directly, but the information is still getting out there.

You can't expect non-specialists to read and understand peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings. I certainly don't expect non-specialists to do so for journals in my field. The mainstream media is the general public's primary source of information.

[waldo]

did you even read the linked article. The perspective isn't from the standpoint of the scientist... the issue at hand is the access to government scientists by the media. Here, let me quote you the article title: "Tightened muzzle on scientists is 'Orwellian' - Documents reveal federal researchers, whose work is financed by taxpayers, need approval from Ottawa before speaking with media"

on edit: (a misplaced emphasis on scientific exchange (scientist-to-scientist) developed in a couple of earlier posts... again, that is not the premise of the linked article)

Ummm.... yes I did.... but it appears that you have not.

the linked article's focus is media access to government scientists as negatively impacted by Harper Conservative policy... for whatever reason someone drew an incorrect premise, not one supported by the article. Anything I've posted reflects directly upon the linked article and the stupidity of the Conservative policy as it negatively impacts media access to government scientists. You said you read the article... clearly, you're mistaken if you think the content of your posts reflects upon it.

[wyly]

Why on Earth would a scientist be forbidden from talking about a 13,000 year old flood? Unless of course there are more Creationists in the Tory caucus than they care to let on.

ya that wouldn't work well with Stockwell's 6,000 yr old earth...

[wyly]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tightened+muzzle+scientists+Orwellian/3515345/story.html

Frankly, I'd like to know the science that my tax dollars are paying for without the filter of ministers, particularly seeing the viewpoints on science that some current ministers seem to have.

when did science become classified "government eyes only"......when as adults do we become old enough to handle knowledge that the conservatives think to dangerous for us to be exposed to?...reminds me of the days in cold war communist countries when their populations were sheltered from the dangerous knowledge of the outside world...this country is being run by neo-fascists religious loons...

[Pliny]

when did science become classified "government eyes only"......when as adults do we become old enough to handle knowledge that the conservatives think to dangerous for us to be exposed to?...reminds me of the days in cold war communist countries when their populations were sheltered from the dangerous knowledge of the outside world...this country is being run by neo-fascists religious loons...

Gosh! Maybe reporters and journalists are too stupid to be able to understand the science, wyly? They could give a distorted view of the particular science they are reporting on if they aren't sciencetits themselves. Well, perhaps that isn't likely since most of the media aren't right wing conservatives.

Maybe just Fox news and the like should be banned from talking directly to scientists?

[Pliny]

Hey, Waldo - was that you or one of your buddies from csicop that had to have his post removed?

[segnosaur]

First of all, there's no guarantee that any main stream media reporter will actually talk to other scientists. (After all, sensationalism sells... And having an article with a headline proclaiming "Government Scientist finds sex causes spontaneous human combustion" will sell a lot more papers than one that proclaims "Everything safe."

When has something like this happened, that mainstream scientific opinion was totally neglected by the press in favour of a fringe view?

I never claimed that the press was ignoring the mainstream scientific opinion. Heck, I wasn't even claiming that the mainstream scientific opinion was getting less attention in the press. But all you need is for one questionable article to be written based on one interview with a non-mainstream scientist for the real anti-science types to latch on to.

Interference by politicians is a much more dangerous threat to public information.

Have the conservatives cut funding into scientific research? Have they prevented the publishing of discoveries in academic forums? Have they attempted to micromanage research budgets? Those are the types of things that are truly worth condemning, but I haven't yet seen any evidence that they have done so.

Secondly, our recent experiences suggest that that is not necessarily the case. For example, we've had study after study, and scientist after scientist pointing out the safety of vaccines. Yet there are still idiots who listen to quacks like Wakefield and Mercola.

But the point is that the more mainstream scientific information did get out and was heard and accepted by the majority.

Yes the mainstream scientific opinion does get heard, but not everyone listens to that. There are plenty of Jenny McCarthy types who will fixate on the one incorrect scientist and ignore the majority.

Quacks will always find some audience and they have a right to!

You're right, they do... but I'd rather not have those 'quacks' represent themselves as somehow associated with the government.

Of course, I do want to point out that all this is hypothetical.... The fact is, the article referred to in the opening post (and heck, most of the posts in this thread) have been incredibly one sided, and I have not seen anything from the conservative side indicating why such controls were put in place. I suggested one situation where a certain amount of spin control might be warranted, although whomever came up with the policy of restricting media access might have other rationals. I just think its foolish to condemn the policy when we've only ever heard one side of the story.

You can't expect non-specialists to read and understand peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings. I certainly don't expect non-specialists to do so for journals in my field. The mainstream media is the general public's primary source of information.

Yes they are... but any decent mainstream science writer will either:

A: be well versed in the topic so that they can understand the original research and put it in a form that the general public can understand, or:

B: have access to other sources (outside of government employees) who can provide a reasonable analysis. In fact, that's exactly what happened in the case described in the original reference... A Canadian scientist had done some research, but the writers were able to use people from outside Canada to provide relevant quotes. End result: Whomever was interested in the topic was still able to write informatively on the topic, and "the public" still got their information. (It is unfortunate that the Canadian who actually did the research didn't get the acknowledgment that comes from mainstream press exposure, but "scientist ego" was not among the reasons anyone here has complained about the policy.

Edited September 16, 2010 by segnosaur

[The_Squid]

I won't set my hair on fire over restricting scientist's access to the media, although it is a bad move that reeks of arrogance. Somehow government bureaucrats know the topic better than the experts? Of course not... they want to ensure that the party-line is delivered, regardless of the scientific facts about a particular topic.

Have the conservatives cut funding into scientific research?

YES. Here is one example of many:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/01/canada-cuts-res.html

The rest of your questions are harder to assess and require much more digging than I am willing to do for a forum, but, from my experience, the answers are a definite YES.

And when the government puts a Minister in charge of science who won't even acknowledge the premise of evolution.... the most basic and important concept in biology, then the government shows an utter lack of respect or knowledge for the subject.

When a Minister of Science invokes religion when asked about evolution (a scientific fact), then there is a serious problem. Either he doesn't understand what basic science is, or doesn't believe in it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article320476.ece

[segnosaur]

I won't set my hair on fire over restricting scientist's access to the media, although it is a bad move that reeks of arrogance. Somehow government bureaucrats know the topic better than the experts?

Of course, it doesn't really matter if the expert knows the topic better... the scientists still can publish their information without hindrance. And should a topic be of interest to the general population, a good science writer will be able to find people to interpret the scientific work.

Have the conservatives cut funding into scientific research?

YES. Here is one example of many:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/01/canada-cuts-res.html

Well, you're right... they did cut funding in recent budgets. In their defense, they are trying to reduce the size of the federal deficit. (Its not the way I would have arranged things... I think that Research is more valuable than, for example, subsidizing the car companies. But at least there's some justification, and I'd wait for a year or 2 to see of those spending cuts continue.)

Of course, the reference in the opening posts mentioned nothing about funding.

When a Minister of Science invokes religion when asked about evolution (a scientific fact), then there is a serious problem. Either he doesn't understand what basic science is, or doesn't believe in it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article320476.ece

Ummmm.... first of all, while the Minister didn't verify a belief in evolution at that time, later reports show: we found out after the article was published, Goodyear does indeed believe in evolution

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=30921bb6-ce10-43f7-9d6e-516844e9f230

To be honest, I'm more concerned that his background is as a chiropractor (a completely unscientific field of study). But before I condemn the conservatives for appointing a chiropractor to their cabinet, I have to consider that the Liberals recently appointed a chiropractor to the position of Health Critic (Dhalla), and the NDP voted against C-51. So to me, all parties have troubles when it comes to science issues.

[waldo]

Ummmm.... first of all, while the Minister didn't verify a belief in evolution at that time, later reports show: we found out after the article was published, Goodyear does indeed believe in evolution

oh... really?

your link didn't provide any suggestion of the kind... perhaps you could help update/counter the following quote from Gary Goodyear, Conservative Minister of State for Science and Technology... the quote he offered as "clarification" of his earlier refusal to comment on his belief (or not) in evolution:

We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant and that is why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong

that gem from Conservative Gary Goodyear is classic creationism... evolving within (micro-evolution... within the same species) as distinct from common descent (macro-evolution... inclusive, of course, in creating new species). So, yes... Canada's Conservative Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, is a creationist... and does not believe in evolution.

[The_Squid]

We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant and that is why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong

That isn't the meaning of evolution in the LEAST!! Evolving to walk on cemcent by making shoes??? This shows a complete and utter ignorance for the meaning of biological evolution.

[wyly]

oh... really?

your link didn't provide any suggestion of the kind... perhaps you could help update/counter the following quote from Gary Goodyear, Conservative Minister of State for Science and Technology... the quote he offered as "clarification" of his earlier refusal to comment on his belief (or not) in evolution:

that gem from Conservative Gary Goodyear is classic creationism... evolving within (micro-evolution... within the same species) as distinct from common descent (macro-evolution... inclusive, of course, in creating new species). So, yes... Canada's Conservative Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, is a creationist... and does not believe in evolution.

minister of science a creationist...do we have fucked up government or what, probably why the evidence of a flood 13,000 yrs ago was suppressed, that just wouldn't fit with the 6,000 year old earth of creationist lore...how screwed would we be if these fruitcakes had a majority? we'd be headed toward a christian version of Iran...

[Pliny]

minister of science a creationist...do we have fucked up government or what, probably why the evidence of a flood 13,000 yrs ago was suppressed, that just wouldn't fit with the 6,000 year old earth of creationist lore...how screwed would we be if these fruitcakes had a majority? we'd be headed toward a christian version of Iran...

Not likely, politics and religion are considered separate in North America.

[The_Squid]

Not likely, politics and religion are considered separate in North America.

Considered by whom?? Apparently, Gary Goodyear, our Minister of Science and Technology, considered a question about evolution to be a religious matter! Are his social and political beliefs guided by his religious beliefs? I would venture an educated guess to say that yes they are....

Someone needs to explain to the Honourable Minister that evolution is not a belief system! It is not a creation of atheists trying to convert theists. It is basic and sound science. It isn't a case of believing in it... it just is.

The Minister for Science disbelieving evolution is akin to the Fisheries Minister believing that salmon are mere mythical creatures! There are fisheries for them... people catch them with rod and reels, but the Minister doesn't believe they actually exist! How could the Minister carry on in that position?

Edited September 17, 2010 by The_Squid

[segnosaur]

Ummmm.... first of all, while the Minister didn't verify a belief in evolution at that time, later reports show: we found out after the article was published, Goodyear does indeed believe in evolution

oh... really?

your link didn't provide any suggestion of the kind... perhaps you could help update/counter the following quote from Gary Goodyear, Conservative Minister of State for Science and Technology...

I cannot update or provide any background to the quote you provided from Goodyear. Why? Because I have no idea what exactly is going through is mind, and unless I get a good hacksaw I probably never will. (You seem to be convinced that he's a creationist, but none of the quotes/information give any indication of his thoughts on common descent.)

I should also remind you that I never claimed that I was a fan/supporter of Goodyear; remember, I've already criticized him in this thread over his background as a chiropractor. (Although I've noticed that not one person who has been condemning the conservatives has addressed the fact that such 'woo' exists in other parties.)

Given the fact that all parties have members who have displayed questionable scientific beliefs, I can really only judge a party on the actions it has taken and the policies in its platform. Yes, the conservatives have limited media access to scientists, but I have not yet seen any indication that they are preventing them from publishing their results. (So the whole "war on science" arguments go out the window.) They have indeed cut research grants, which is not something I support but is understandable given attempts to reduce the deficit. (And, according to a reference provided earlier by another poster, while they cut scientific grants, they still increased funding on infrastructure used by the scientific community.)

[waldo]

I cannot update or provide any background to the quote you provided from Goodyear. Why? Because I have no idea what exactly is going through is mind, and unless I get a good hacksaw I probably never will. (You seem to be convinced that he's a creationist, but none of the quotes/information give any indication of his thoughts on common descent.)

my reply to you reflected your specific, slightly emphatic, statement that, "Goodyear does indeed believe in evolution"... his initial unwillingness to respond and his eventual rambling disjointed "high heels" clarification, one reflecting a non-common descent understanding/acceptance of evolution, does not foster any degree of confidence that, yes, Conservative Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, believes in evolution. The fact his current position is that his personal beliefs... are his personal beliefs... that the public has no need to know them... and that they won't affect his decision making, about closes the book on Goodyear's non-belief.

Given the fact that all parties have members who have displayed questionable scientific beliefs, I can really only judge a party on the actions it has taken and the policies in its platform. Yes, the conservatives have limited media access to scientists, but I have not yet seen any indication that they are preventing them from publishing their results. (So the whole "war on science" arguments go out the window.) They have indeed cut research grants, which is not something I support but is understandable given attempts to reduce the deficit. (And, according to a reference provided earlier by another poster, while they cut scientific grants, they still increased funding on infrastructure used by the scientific community.)

if, as you say, other parties have members displaying questionable scientific beliefs, those scenarios could/should be elaborated on... particularly if the members are in positions of accountability and influence... like a Harper Conservative minister who is responsible for science and technology funding, one Gary Goodyear, who does not believe in one of the fundamental foundations of modern science - evolution theory! You strangely continue to dwell on the red-herring concerning publishing... that wasn't mentioned in the original linked article (a particular MLW member took it upon himself to register a personal concern on that note). So, yes - the Harper Conservative 'war on science' is on full display in terms of limiting media access to government scientists... along with the reduced funding for pure scientific research, notwithstanding the most visible and prolific areas of research that had their funding cut. There is a most significant raised alarm from scientists about the potential for a coming 'brain-drain'... all that 2009 Conservative budget focus on 'bricks & mortar' will seem quite irrelevant if there are no scientists around to do research within those infrastructure upgrades.

[waldo]

the U.S. Republican party of Know-Nothings!

U.S. Republican Senate Candidates Oppose Climate Science And Policy - Report reveals all but one of party's 48 mid-term election candidates are skeptical about climate change

update: of course, the article predates the recent days win for the TeaBaggers Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle... the single lone Republican that had been identified as believing in AGW & the need for policy action.

Edited September 18, 2010 by waldo

[myata]

LOL, this constitutes a war on science? Breaking News! When your salary is paid by somebody else, they will have final say on your work. I'm shocked I tells'ya.

Most certainly, awe and eternal gratitude to my GOVERNMENT for paying my salaries, running the country (according to its ideology) and figuring out all the science - for me.

No questions asked.

[normanchateau]

Not likely, politics and religion are considered separate in North America.

The born-again, Evangelical Stephen Harper has a history of mixing politics with religion. He opposed Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote the murder of homosexuals in part because he feared that it would result in the bible being banned in Canada. And it was not health concerns that caused Harper to ban abortion funding in third world countries in his maternal and child health initiative. Besides creationist Gary Goodyear, Canada's government is top-heavy with Evangelicals...Stockwell Day, Vic Toews, Stephen Harper.

[normanchateau]

LOL, this constitutes a war on science?

I suppose if preventing federal scientists from talking to the media about 13,000 year old floods and other research findings inconsistent with Harper's beliefs were the only example, this would not constitute a war on science. Unfortunately, there are more examples.

The percentage of qualified researchers in Canada being funded by Tri-Council grants, i.e., CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC,

has been steadily eroding during the dark Harper era.

Since his election, Harper has been in a constant war with medical scientists and physicians at Insite:

http://www.straight.com/article-141083/harper-government-has-no-love-science

He permanently eliminated his National Science Advisor:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/quirks-blog/2008/01/no_science_in_the_pms_ear.html

One could argue that appointing Gary Goodyear as Minister of Science shows utter contempt for science but I'll cut Harper some slack on that absurd appointment. He didn't have a lot of options in his bible-thumping caucus. Stockwell Day would have been a worst choice.

And anyone with even a first-year college or university undergraduate knowledge of the science of statistics would know that a voluntary census makes no sense in terms of scientific validity. The US once tried a voluntary census, found it didn't work, and went back to a mandatory census.

As much as Harper's irrational ditching of the mandatory census annoys me, there is a golden lining. Those undecided voters who might once have wondered how Harper would behave with a majority can now make an educated guess. If Harper, while leading a minority government, is willing to risk getting rid of a mandatory census favoured by scientists and most Canadians, what would he do if he actually achieved that elusive minority?