'Muzzle' Placed On Federal Scientists

[Lazarus]

From the Vancouver Sun:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=47bf0fba-b98f-43fb-89fb-58b6464a7b24&k=65248

I really don't like to see this sort of thing happening here.

[Baz]

I would agree that it is concerning.

On the other hand if the Federal Gov. is paying for the research, I guess they have a right to question and approve the findings before it is released. I would have a bigger issue if their reports were being sensored.

I can see why the Feds would not want a research scientist to be their sole spokesperson and without any controls, this could be the case.

[MidLifeMike]

As much as I think the 'gummint' can be a bunch of dinks, I didn't read anything ominous in that report. As far as I can see, researchers can still talk amongst themselves; it's the public media they want held at arms length. Also, people shouldn't be offering comments outside their immediate area of expertise. I've heard Dr. Suzuki be way off base within his original discipline, which is genetics. And he is a media maven so the unsophisticated can be suckered by a reporter quite readily.

I volunteer on public/private sector committees dealing with the environment and there are people in those groups that shouldn't be let anywhere near a reporter. Loose cannons.

[Baz]

The thing with research science is that it may take several different kinds of studies on one topic before an accurate claim can be made.

For instance, I was just reading about a study on Vitamin D. One researcher had initial evidence that it may be one of the best prevention of Cancer ever found. Well his initial findings got out and the public was racing to the store to buy Vitamin D.

Now here is where things get dangerous. No one had yet done a study of the long term effects the vitamin D would have on people that took it in the doses he had prescribed in the study. It may have actually killed people in the long run (Well as it turns out thus far is that the only proven benefit Vitamin D had on the study group was reduced risk of Colon Cancer).

So over the past few years they are finding that Vitamin D in high doses is good, but the Fed. Gov. here will still not change to recommended daily dose of Vitamin D until more risk/reward studies are done.

So I think it can be a dangerous thing for scientists to make the findings of their studies public, until they are critiqued.


But I really do hate sensorship.

[Lazarus]

What I worry about is the politicization of scientific research findings - where scientists aren't allowed to talk about their findings because it disagrees with the political agenda of whatever party happens to be in power (as seems to be happening with increasing frequency south of the border).  Harper's government has already, as far as I'm concerned, put too many gags on people.

[Baz]

What I worry about is the politicization of scientific research findings - where scientists aren't allowed to talk about their findings because it disagrees with the political agenda of whatever party happens to be in power (as seems to be happening with increasing frequency south of the border).  Harper's government has already, as far as I'm concerned, put too many gags on people.

I would fully agree, and that's when you cross the fine line of Critiquing/Sensorship.

I would disagree about Harper gaging things, in fact I think he has provided the most open Gov. we have seen here in years. The only thing he has placed a gag on are his cabinet meetings, and he has all the right in the world to do this, to prevent leaks of the official party line, before they are presented. A smart leader does this always.

I would present the Manley report as an example. If there was anything Harper should have gagged one would think it would have been that one. It was prepared by a Liberal, and the meat of that report had the potential of being quite nasty for him.


Disclaimer... I am not affiliated with ANY political party.!~

[Lazarus]

Neither am I  

[blkhrt81]

   This happens because of the adversarial nature of politics. Say, for instance, a scientist releases a report indicating a problem. Next day in the House and on tv outraged opposition spokesmen are howling for heads, demanding action et. etc. The intent is to ( I think) let the minister in charge have at least an inkling of where his next disaster will come from. Now because it is all people, it probably won't stay quite that simple so we will have anonymous leaks and whistle blowers and charges laid because the politicians just can't have a reasonable debate in public. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a federal supported scientist to notify the government what they are going to release first as long as it does still get released.

[TimothyPilgrim]

The Harper government, it it's bid to be the Bush cabinet Jr., has very obviously been at odds with the scientific establishment in Canada. Not only has it put this "gag" order on research scientists, it has also just abolished the position of scientific adviser to the feds (admittedly only recently created by the Martin government). The journal Nature has noticed this anti-science position of our feds and published an article denouncing it yesterday.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7181/full/451866a.html

Tim

[bubba zanetti]

Post deleted so as not to help make the Canada section into a Political Cesspool ..... not that I participate in political cesspools , ..ok ... I do ... but I do it in PO or OffTopic with all the looney mericans.  

[Bowtie76]

I guess I'm missing the real problem here.  Yes the state scientist now have to get OK's for public statements but all real science and research is presented in Peer review scientific journals.  There doesn't seem to be any restriction on the publication of scientific findings.

As far as I'm concerned some scientist spouting off a sound bite for an interview is CRAP, I want to see the data and analysis in print in a peer review journal before I give it any credence.

YMMV