Canadian Government muzzling taxpayer funded scientists.

[photon]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tig...345/story.html

Natural Resources Canada (NRC) scientists were told this spring they need "pre-approval" from Minister Christian Paradis' office to speak with journalists. Their "media lines" also need ministerial approval, say documents obtained by Postmedia News through access-to-information legislation.

The documents show the new rules being so broadly applied that one scientist was not permitted to discuss a study in a major research journal without "pre-approval" from political staff in Paradis' office.

NRC scientist Scott Dallimore coauthored the study, published in the journal Nature on April 1, about a colossal flood that swept across northern Canada 13,000 years ago, when massive ice dams gave way at the end of the last ice age.

The study was considered so newsworthy that two British universities issued releases to alert the international media.

It was, however, deemed so sensitive in Ottawa that Dallimore, who works at NRC's laboratories outside Victoria, was told he had to wait for clearance from the minister's office.

Should I be surprised though? Hasn't this been a theme of Harper's; controlling media access to the government?

[flylock shox]

A lot of federal government departments need clearance from Ottawa before making statements to the public, usually with the explanation that the government needs to be seen to be speaking "with one voice" rather than having conflicting statements from various departments.

Of course, where this approach runs into difficulty is where the statements don't (or shouldn't have) any political element. Whether specific research has a political element to it is probably debatable on a case-by-case basis, but the Tories are, shall we say, control freaks, so this broad policy isn't particularly surprising.

[CaptainCrunch]

Less talky more sciency

And get me a sanddy

[mykalberta]

Just wondering, do companies have this sort of policy with employees and the media. Have their been alot of BP employees speaking out to the media?

I would think taxpayer funded scientists are employees of the government and would be under the same sort of keep your mouth shut or we will fire you policy.

[zuluking]

When did scientists become so whiny?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Just wondering, do companies have this sort of policy with employees and the media. Have their been alot of BP employees speaking out to the media?

I would think taxpayer funded scientists are employees of the government and would be under the same sort of keep your mouth shut or we will fire you policy.

Really? So if you are funded by the taxpayers and you find some government wrongdoing, you shouldn't be allowed to expose this wrongdoing unless the government says that you can?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Just wondering, do companies have this sort of policy with employees and the media. Have their been alot of BP employees speaking out to the media?

I would think taxpayer funded scientists are employees of the government and would be under the same sort of keep your mouth shut or we will fire you policy.

The government is the taxpayer's employee, so I'd like to think if they have something to say we should get to hear it.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Just wondering, do companies have this sort of policy with employees and the media. Have their been alot of BP employees speaking out to the media?

I would think taxpayer funded scientists are employees of the government and would be under the same sort of keep your mouth shut or we will fire you policy.

I think there's a difference. A corporate scientist is an employee of the corporation, and is expected to follow corporate rules, which usually includes not saying things that are bad for the bottom line. That's why when a BP scientist says that oil spills don't hurt anything or a tobacco company scientist says cigarettes are good for you we don't take them at their word (though generally it's not the scientists saying these things, it's the public relations people).

Government scientists are paid by taxpayers, and are generally expected to represent the Canadian people, not the political party that is currently in power. I expect them to be reasonably neutral. If the PMO is vetting communications and making sure they match the ideology of the Conservative party, then we effectively lose that neutrality and it becomes a lot harder to trust what we hear from government scientists.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I would think taxpayer funded scientists are employees of the government and would be under the same sort of keep your mouth shut or we will fire you policy.

Generally speaking, it depends entirely on the position of the employee and the nature of the specific project they are working on. Ottawa doesn't have its fingers on everything or everyone, but exerts influence where it chooses. Some federal employees have free rein, while others don't. Where scientists are concerned it can be complicated: the scientific process benefits from peer review and open criticism, but there are state secrets as would be the case with most military research for example.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Thor

The government is the taxpayer's employee, so I'd like to think if they have something to say we should get to hear it.

Exactly, we're ultimately the Government's boss, not the other way around. The should not be able to censor anything like that.

[Canada 02]

interesting they are 'muzzled' after they have published. I guess the general public doesn't read Nature, but might read the science section of the newspaper

[photon]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Where scientists are concerned it can be complicated: the scientific process benefits from peer review and open criticism, but there are state secrets as would be the case with most military research for example.

That's not what they're talking about here though, the research itself hasn't been diminished, just the media's access to the scientists. And that's what makes this so strange to me.

The journalists can freely go look at the scientific research directly because it's published in scientific journals, but can't call up the scientist to get the sound bite they're looking for.

Hm, maybe that's a good thing, journalists always get it wrong when it comes to science anyway

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by photon

That's not what they're talking about here though, the research itself hasn't been diminished, just the media's access to the scientists. And that's what makes this so strange to me.

The journalists can freely go look at the scientific research directly because it's published in scientific journals, but can't call up the scientist to get the sound bite they're looking for.

Hm, maybe that's a good thing, journalists always get it wrong when it comes to science anyway

I think you may have answered your own question.

If the research is already published and publicly available, what's left for the journalist to do? Most likely, they're looking for a political angle on the research that they can turn into a story - that is likely the government's concern.

[photon]

Well in theory the journalist would take a highly technical piece of writing like a paper and mash it up so it's digestible to the public.. in practice they're awful at this, sometimes because they're trying to fit it with a political (or ideological) frame, and also maybe because it seems the profession doesn't really encourage a journalist to take their time and digest and understand something before relaying it to the unwashed masses. Understanding science is hard sometimes.

EDIT: Either way it still has a chilling effect on the scientific enterprise which depends on openness and free discourse.

[northcrunk]

No surprising since our science minister is a creationist like the rest of his party, remember Stockwell 'barney the dinosaur' Day when he said humans used to live with dinosaurs 3k years ago

[Locke]

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Just wondering, do companies have this sort of policy with employees and the media. Have their been alot of BP employees speaking out to the media?

My company does. Any time we've ended up in the public light for some reason, a memo has gone out very fast stating that anyone contacted by the media should defer all questions to the company's public relations person.

This really is SOP.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by photon

Well in theory the journalist would take a highly technical piece of writing like a paper and mash it up so it's digestible to the public.. in practice they're awful at this, sometimes because they're trying to fit it with a political (or ideological) frame, and also maybe because it seems the profession doesn't really encourage a journalist to take their time and digest and understand something before relaying it to the unwashed masses. Understanding science is hard sometimes.

EDIT: Either way it still has a chilling effect on the scientific enterprise which depends on openness and free discourse.

I don't know how this impacts openness and free discourse within the science community. Isn't that what scientists care about? Of course, soundbites and sensationalizing got the climate scientists fame, fortune and all the big grants, so I guess I can see why they're grumpy about not having unimpeded access to / from the media.

[Finny61]

Its all about the politics, doesn't surprise me in the least.

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I don't know how this impacts openness and free discourse within the science community.

As has been pointed out, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Isn't that what scientists care about?

Being able to educate the public and other scientists about your findings is important too, especially in an environment where people actively deny science for ideological or other reasons.

Plus a lot of discourse in science occurs outside the journals.

Look at the TED talk Thor posted in the science thread, if you were a scientist invited to talk about your research but either couldn't or just had to wait for approval from the government to do so, or have your responses limited to a pre-set script... that's a chilling effect IMO.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Of course, soundbites and sensationalizing got the climate scientists fame, fortune and all the big grants, so I guess I can see why they're grumpy about not having unimpeded access to / from the media.