New science minister not very scientific.

[poochy]

And what expertise did Leona Agglukaq have for the job?

Another deflection and irrelevant taken in the context of this super sciency (of course that was bs) government, the nose on your face, it's that obvious.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Another deflection and irrelevant taken in the context of this super sciency (of course that was bs) government, the nose on your face, it's that obvious.

Is that an answer to my question? Ministers in Canada are often only vaguely acquainted with their

portfolio. It's traditional in this country. Consider the new Minister a good example of that tendency.

Edited November 13, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[ToadBrother]

Again I question the sanity of people who ignore that this new and sunny government promised a new fact based way of doing things and then they immediately appointed someone as minister of science, who believes strongly in unscientific things, and not only that, appears to have some other, issues.

This is akin to the conservatives having appointed Stockwell Day Minister of evolution, but of course the conservatives didn't pretend that everyone else was anti science and then promote themselves as the beacons of facts and evidence like the liberals have, while then immediately proving that to be entirely untrue. O, People should be qualified for the jobs they hold...how can the minister of science be qualified if she promotes medical therapies without scientific evidence? She isn't, and the liberals are proven to be liars once again, how many days/lies has it been? There is obviously no concern for science in her appointment, the concern for appearances to be sure, but that is what they are always best at.

The Tories put a Creationist in charge of science funding. If the Liberals are bad, the Tories were no better, and in general, at least the Liberals have committed to stop ignoring and stifling scientists, putting science over ideological or short-term economic goals. We'll see whether they keep their word, but until they give me reason not to believe them, I'll give them a chance.

They can't possibly more contemptuous and dismissive of science than the Tories were.

[Argus]

No, I consider your interpretations and cherry picking pseudoscience.

Ah yes, your whimsical notion that if one posts cites which contain information in support of your own position this constitutes 'cherry picking"!

Notwithstanding the fact the other side of the discussion is unable to supply any contrary information!

[SpankyMcFarland]

Is prior knowledge of the work of a government department necessary to manage it well? No. Is it an advantage? To answer that, think about whether it might be a disadvantage - obviously not. So it is SOME advantage. We could probably appeal to our geeks to draw up some very rough formula where such expertise is non-zero. It depends on the dept but the closer you get to real science, the bigger the value such familiarity is.

Has anybody watched that groovily long-haired Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz explain the nuclear deal with Iran? Once you get beyond the visual strangeness, you are in the company of somebody who cannot be floored by any query on the basics. Guys like Colbert etc. can come up with some pretty grown-up ideas that need to be answered on the spot to keep any credibility. Moniz is ready for anything. He looks so relaxed when dealing with with the stuff thrown at him. Expertise, my friends.

Edited November 14, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[poochy]

The Tories put a Creationist in charge of science funding. If the Liberals are bad, the Tories were no better, and in general, at least the Liberals have committed to stop ignoring and stifling scientists, putting science over ideological or short-term economic goals. We'll see whether they keep their word, but until they give me reason not to believe them, I'll give them a chance.

They can't possibly more contemptuous and dismissive of science than the Tories were.

keep deflecting.

[poochy]

Is that an answer to my question? Ministers in Canada are often only vaguely acquainted with their

portfolio. It's traditional in this country. Consider the new Minister a good example of that tendency.

I had written a response, but apparently I wasn't nice enough when I gave my version of the truth in response to this, so i'll see if I can get this one past the goalie, you seem to be either incapable of seeing the point in the proper context, or are being purposefully obtuse.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I had written a response, but apparently I wasn't nice enough when I gave my version of the truth in response to this, so i'll see if I can get this one past the goalie, you seem to be either incapable of seeing the point in the proper context, or are being purposefully obtuse.

This is only a fun forum here. So have fun. Don't take things so seriously.

I would prefer a scientist in the role. I think that's a fairly direct answer.

[overthere]

Both management expertise and knowledge of the subject are highly useful. Most great CEOs have both. Look at high tech. The vast majority of successful CEOs have not been blow-ins - they have been intimately involved in making products. The person in charge of GM has usually known quite a bit about making cars before they took the job. They had a few recent ones who didn't but Mary Barra's story is more

Incorrect. CEOs are very often not promoted from within, they are brought in from other industries that are unconnected to their new job.

For the reasons I stated.

Strategy and people, bigger picture stuff - those are the skills needed. Subject matter/tech/finance people can be hired much more easily than great managers.

[Rue]

The world is flat like this Minister's head. Get used to it. She is a narcissist. Narcissists run for office so they can hear themselves speak. Either that or they join me on this forum where no one cares about our opinions either way. She's a goof. Her track record on MS was painfully embarrassing. How she slipped through the media with no criticism is ample testimony to the pro Trudeau bias of the media.. We shall see how long that lasts.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Rue

[marcus]

Narcissists run for office so they can hear themselves speak. Either that or they join me on this forum where no one cares about our opinions either way.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Incorrect. CEOs are very often not promoted from within, they are brought in from other industries that are unconnected to their new job.

For the reasons I stated.

Strategy and people, bigger picture stuff - those are the skills needed. Subject matter/tech/finance people can be hired much more easily than great managers.

Exceptional people can indeed succeed from other fields. However, I hope you would accept that prior expertise is an advantage, not a disadvantage to any minister. If you were creating a formula for success, it would be in there, along with many other factors. The minister will also face public interrogation in interviews, or should do (not often enough during the Harper years) and it is very easy to make a fool of yourself in that context if you have no background in something as complex as health care. Just take a look at some of the interviews given by previous ministers. As a minister, you are a promoter of your department, not just a manager.

[SpankyMcFarland]

The purpose of a Minister, particularly in a Westminster style parliament, is to be the conduit between Parliament and the "functional executive". You're no more going to get a large number of MPs with MBAs, or even more informal management training, than you will MPs who are scientists, doctors, or any other professions. The point of the Minister is to be the political element of government, so they are not quite managers in the corporate sense of the word.

Well, we do have a large number of MPs who are lawyers, too many, which may explain why the Justice Ministry is different from the others. Suddenly, prior expertise is vital.

[poochy]

Well, we do have a large number of MPs who are lawyers, too many, which may explain why the Justice Ministry is different from the others. Suddenly, prior expertise is vital.

If you keep that up you will never get out of that pretzel shape.

Liberals complain former government is anti science, appoint anti science, science minister, liberal voters don't understand conflict. I will admit, this is pretty complicated, for some.

Edited November 15, 2015 by poochy

[SpankyMcFarland]

If you keep that up you will never get out of that pretzel shape.

Liberals complain former government is anti science, appoint anti science, science minister, liberal voters don't understand conflict. I will admit, this is pretty complicated, for some.

I don't support her appointment. Is that simple enough for you?

[poochy]

Why did it take so long? Btw, the tone of your post could be better, and if you don't want to be asked the question or made a a point of don't put yourself in a position of defending or equivocating on the subject of this appointment. Of course you aren't alone.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Why did it take so long? Btw, the tone of your post could be better, and if you don't want to be asked the question or made a a point of don't put yourself in a position of defending or equivocating on the subject of this appointment. Of course you aren't alone.

I feel I can answer how I like here - I am not on trial. We have been making this kind of mistake in this country for years and that larger point should be made. As you can see, many people don't agree we have been making any such error.

[Smallc]

How about we wait and see if she makes an idiot of herself first?

[The_Squid]

How about we wait and see if she makes an idiot of herself first?

A novel idea....

[msj]

Agreed.

But to make this thread more scientific I think we should conduct a poll to see if it should be called "New science minister not very scientific" vs "New science minister not very science-y."

I prefer the latter title.

[Big Guy]

I don't support her appointment. Is that simple enough for you?

You too?

For the last 50 years I have been patiently waiting for a phone call from a Prime Minister asking for my advice in creating his (oh and hers - Campbell) cabinet. No call yet.

Thanks. I thought I was the only one.

[SpankyMcFarland]

You too?

For the last 50 years I have been patiently waiting for a phone call from a Prime Minister asking for my advice in creating his (oh and hers - Campbell) cabinet. No call yet.

Thanks. I thought I was the only one.

It is truly extraordinary that nobody has sought my wisdom on such matters. Yet here I sit, more than willing to dispense such pearls.

[dialamah]

Yet that Minister- and many others in our history- did not translate personal beliefs into action.

Harper is a Christian, yet did nothing to affect access to abortion.

He did nothing in this country to affect access to abortion, but he certainly did in other countries.

[hitops]

As a doc, I agree this 'minister' is a joke.

[Smeelious]

Agreed.

But to make this thread more scientific I think we should conduct a poll to see if it should be called "New science minister not very scientific" vs "New science minister not very science-y."

I prefer the latter title.

I'd argue that by all accounts she is "science-y" but not necessarily "scientific"....