[Bagor]

Not really new news but good to see it getting a bit of media attention. Is this the sort of behaviour one would expect from a free western country? Stifle select research and drip feed information as it suits current or proposed policy. A great lesson in transparency.

VANCOUVER — For almost three weeks after David Tarasick published findings about one of the largest ozone holes ever discovered above the Arctic, the federal scientist was barred from breathing a word about it to the media. Kristi Miller was similarly gagged from granting interviews about her own research into a virus that might be killing British Columbia's wild sockeye salmon, despite going to print in the prestigious journal Science.
Such incidents aren't one-off occurrences, but instead represent a trend of "muzzling" policies being imposed on Canadian scientists by federal agencies under the Conservative government, a panel told their international peers Friday at a global science conference in Vancouver.
"It's pretty clear that for federal scientists, Ottawa decides now if the researchers can talk, what they can talk about and when they can say it," senior science journalist Margaret Munro, with Postmedia News, told a group gathered at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20...ntists-120217/

VANCOUVER — Groups representing scientists and science writers sent an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Friday calling on his government to stop "muzzling" federal researchers.
The release of the letter coincided with a panel discussion at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual conference, which heard numerous examples of alleged government interference and reporters being denied timely access to scientists.
Such control is sinking morale among scientists and denying the public access to important information about climate, agriculture and the environment, the conference heard.
"Why are we suppressing really good news to Canadians — that is, successful science being done in federal government labs?" asked Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria. "Why don't we open it up? There's nothing to be feared but success."
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States recently adopted a policy that encourages its scientists to talk freely to the media without an intermediary.
Under the new policy, scientists are allowed to express their own opinions, on the condition they make it clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the agency.
The letter addressed to the prime minister Friday urged the government to take a similar approach.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/...398/story.html

The response ...

In an email, spokesman Jay Jacobson said the government's communications policy is designed to ensure that "interviews or technical information on specialized subjects, are directed to knowledgeable managers or staff designated to speak as official representatives."

In other words ... control the information.

So why should any of this matter?
If the Canadian media protocol for government scientists is seen to be effective in preventing ministerial surprises then governments across the world will want to follow the same procedures.
That, some argue, would act as a brake on the culture of debate that is necessary to develop effective evidence-based policies.
Government agencies exist to serve the public good and usually do. In theory, if they believe that an area of public policy is going badly wrong and have the evidence to prove it, they say so.
In the past, this has worked well, as with the impact of lead in fuel on child development, the causes and effects of climate change and - more recently - the harmful effects of excessive dietary salt on human health.
Science advisers can act as an independent voice within government to identify and challenge bad practice.
For research results to change policy, government scientists need direct access to the public in order to explain the policy implications of their work through the news media.
Without that, it would be tempting for governments to ignore research results that do not suit them.
The public understanding of science empowers individuals, enables an informed debate from which policy changes can spring - benefiting society.
Stifling the free flow of information about research findings might reduce ministerial embarrassment. But for the sake of good governance, it might be better if there were a few more surprises for ministers in the news media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16881087

I've no problems with information being suppressed if it's in the interest of security but when it comes to controlling (written questions and responses) or refusing interviews by scientists for the public domain simply because their findings goes against official policy then it is as one scientist put it ... Orwellian and (IMO) undemocratic.