Harper Government continues its anti-science ways

FluffyMcDeath

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,257
Reaction score
2,693
The Harper government doesn't want a government scientist talking about what she found out about salmon.

Researchers, who used to be free to discuss their science, are now required to follow a process that includes "media lines" approved by communications officers, strategists and ministerial staff in Ottawa. They vet media requests, demand reporters' questions in advance and decide when and if researchers can give interviews.
Click to expand...

Why? Because science is now political speech? Maybe that's the viewpoint - it becomes "political" when the science shows your policies are nonsense I suppose but a mature, responsible government should exist to govern based on the best possible information not based on preconceived policy and damn the evidence. But then again - look at the example that Harper is modeled on down south. They completely abandoned "reality based" thinking down there.

Remember this little gem from the Bush years?

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Click to expand...

even if the "act" is driving the country off a cliff.
 
Well, I guess it's a good thing all the research on the effects of Asbestos have been long since complete and published. At least for us Canadians, still sucks for those who buy it from us.
 
Same thing happened in the UK regarding drugs. Scientists banned from talking about science because it's political.
 
Shouldn't that read; Federal Government stops Federal Employee from talking about Federal Research.

That's what happens when researchers and scientists suck at the government teat.

Your problem stems from the concept that the "Government" should pay for everything.

Had she been a private researcher, the government might have complained, but they couldn't have shut her up, even in Canada.

Don't complain about this problem McDeath, you created it. Own up to it, take the responsibility. Eat your peas.
 
Fade said:
Shouldn't that read; Federal Government stops Federal Employee from talking about Federal Research.

That's what happens when researchers and scientists suck at the government teat.
Click to expand...

She is my employee. She is my scientist and she works for me and I have every right to hear from her. She is a PUBLIC employee. Which political party currently holds the legislative majority has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the fact that she works for ME and the rest of the public.
Your problem stems from the concept that the "Government" should pay for everything.
Click to expand...
I pay for the government and I have a RIGHT to know what my money pays for. The "Government" does not pay for everything - I and my fellow Canadians do. We merely put them there to direct the spending (and, of course, they tend to skim but that's another matter) and whatever the money is spent on we have a right to benefit from. That's why people create governments (or any other social organization like country clubs or business associations).
Had she been a private researcher, the government might have complained, but they couldn't have shut her up, even in Canada.
Click to expand...
Had she been a private researcher then she could have been shut up by her private employer. That may be less than thoroughly right (you abdicate certain rights to be employed) but if private interests paid for it they have an interest in the information generated. However, I am a stake holder and a funder of this research and I do not take kindly to some puffed up flak deciding that I don't deserve to hear about the results. The government should not be treating public employees as private employees.
 
Fluffy demanded
"She is my employee. She is my scientist and she works for me and I have every right to hear from her."
------------------------------

One problem with that!
That is not what you aspire to. You don't want her for an employee.
You want corporations and big money people to pay for her with big taxes on their big profits, but you still want the fringe benefits of her findings for yourself.
Have another helping of puffed up peas, you do deserve them.
 
Fade said:
You want corporations and big money people to pay for her with big taxes on their big profits, but you still want the fringe benefits of her findings for yourself.
Click to expand...
We allow big companies to have legal rights but they have responsibilities and costs that go along with that. There is no reason that we are compelled to allow them to exist. It is just a legal structure to get things done but if companies do not work for the public good they aren't sacred and they can be ended and replaced.

But further than that, all wealth created by the company in Canada is created by the people working for it. For allowing legal ownership of a company and for protecting that company's legal rights while they make a profit we are quite entitled to a cut of those profits. As some are happy to tell us - ultimately the tax payer pays all the taxes so unless that's not true the research still belongs to the public - not to companies.
 
why is telling the truth such an "evil" these days?
 
Sez you:
"There is no reason that we are compelled to allow them to exist. It is just a legal structure to get things done but if companies do not work for the public good they aren't sacred and they can be ended and replaced."
-----------------------------------

By George, you have hit upon something there McDeath.
That is the perfect definition of communism.
 
Fade said:
That's what happens when researchers and scientists suck at the government teat.
Click to expand...
Although Fluffy already mentioned this, perhaps it wasn't simple enough for you. There's nothing about this scenario that would make it impossible for someone to meddle with a private researcher's findings. Typically, if a researcher is hired by a private company to do some research, that research is owned by the private company. Tobacco companies had their own research demonstrating the effects of tobacco but decided to bury it. Of course, that is the private researchers prerogative. But when research is done using public money, then the results should also be public. This isn't really a debate between private research vs public research, it's a discussion on why this publicly funded research isn't made public.
 
Fade said:
By George, you have hit upon something there McDeath.
That is the perfect definition of communism.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see your reasoning behind that. And while you are at it tell me why people create governments and what the purpose of a democratic government is.
 
Btw, this also reminds me of when Harper decided to fire the nuclear safety regulator instead of taking their recommendations seriously. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top