Muzzled Scientists head rears up again

[George Wallace]

LOL!

Remember this?

One thing that makes me happy is the immediate return of the long form census and the creation of a Chief Science Office. This is just common sense, we shouldn't be afraid of facts.

https://www.liberal.ca/open-letter-to-canadas-public-servants/

Canadians also expect their government to produce policies and programs based on facts. Replacing the long-form census with the National Household Survey is another example of the Harper Conservatives’ short-sighted and ideological approach to governing. This policy hurts Canadians and the government programs and services on which they rely. A Liberal government will immediately restore the mandatory long-form census and make Statistics Canada fully independent. We will ensure evidence-based decision-making is once again a guiding principle of the Canadian government.

The muzzling of scientists and the Conservative suppression of scientific information is an assault on democracy and an embarrassment to Canada on the international stage. The Liberal Party of Canada is committed to revoking the rules and regulations that muzzle government scientists and allow them to speak freely about their work, with only limited and publicly-stated exceptions. In addition, we will consolidate government science so that it is easily available to the public at-large through a central portal.

Further to this, should the Liberal Party of Canada form the next government, we will create a Chief Science Officer, whose mandate will include ensuring that government science is freely available to the public, that scientists are able to speak freely about their work, and that scientific analyses are appropriately considered when the government makes decisions.

Well it seems that.....

'Unmuzzled' scientists still need tight leash, Liberals advised

 

[cavalryman]

Meet the new boss - same as the old boss.  First the PS sick leave issue, now this...  Schadenfreude is such a wonderful word.  [

 

[Flavus101]

The new boss is just more open to "shopping" and putting it on the credit card.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Should be unnecessary to say but what most of what the Conservatives took heat for was bureaucratic policy as opposed to Conservative policy.  It is inconceivable that the Conservatives would have a policy of scientific secrecy, just as it is inconceivable that the Liberals would have such a policy.

 

[Kilo_302]

Should be unnecessary to say but what most of what the Conservatives took heat for was bureaucratic policy as opposed to Conservative policy.  It is inconceivable that the Conservatives would have a policy of scientific secrecy, just as it is inconceivable that the Liberals would have such a policy.

Disagree. The Conservatives were very adept at using bureaucracy as a smoke screen and substitute for overt policies that would draw more immediate attention. The limitations they put on Canadian scientists were ludicrous at times, and were purposely designed to make it very difficult if not impossible to discuss work with the media or public at large. One just has to examine the effects of the regulations under the Conservatives to understand this. What other purpose could they serve? 

 

[Flavus101]

Kilo, why don't you provide some specifics to your last post. It is nice to just throw words around, but without substance they are just words and do not count for much.

 

[George Wallace]

Disagree. The Conservatives were very adept at using bureaucracy as a smoke screen and substitute for overt policies that would draw more immediate attention. The limitations they put on Canadian scientists were ludicrous at times, and were purposely designed to make it very difficult if not impossible to discuss work with the media or public at large. One just has to examine the effects of the regulations under the Conservatives to understand this. What other purpose could they serve?

Sorry, but if they are enforcing the "Rules" as laid out, they are not doing anything wrong.  If the "Rules" were not strictly enforced or adhered to, you can not blame the people who come in and put a stop to that negligent behavior of wrong doing or prejudicial behavior.

Not that this matters much, as the Liberals seem to be following suit.  I guess that is all Harper's fault too.   

 

[cavalryman]

Disagree. The Conservatives were very adept at using bureaucracy as a smoke screen and substitute for overt policies that would draw more immediate attention. The limitations they put on Canadian scientists were ludicrous at times, and were purposely designed to make it very difficult if not impossible to discuss work with the media or public at large. One just has to examine the effects of the regulations under the Conservatives to understand this. What other purpose could they serve?

Let's be clear here.  Government scientists are civil servants first and foremost, not scientists first and foremost, and as such are subject to all of the restrictions that apply to civil servants when it comes to flapping your lips in public.  Having a magical PhD does not grant one immunity from the rules.  Quite frankly, as a former civil servant, I was embarrassed at the whining.  If those scientists want to be able to speak whenever and to whoever they want, they're welcome to leave the Public Service.  If they continue to accept the Crown's shilling, they'll abide by the Crown's rules.  Sheesh  :

 

[Kilo_302]

Kilo, why don't you provide some specifics to your last post. It is nice to just throw words around, but without substance they are just words and do not count for much.

I've posted a few of these before, and back then the responses were largely ad hominem attacks on the scientists themselves. I would just say that Canadian scientists are not an activist bunch, but the regulations the Conservatives put in place caused them to get involved publicly in politics. This is unheard of.

It now looks as thought the Liberals might not change much, which isn't exactly surprising.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/when-science-goes-silent/

http://globalnews.ca/news/2005043/what-scientists-being-muzzled-looks-like-in-the-real-world/

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/09/28/news/potentially-scandalous-probe-muzzled-scientists-not-likely-out-oct19

http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/10/unmuzzled-scientists-canada-trudeau_n_9432520.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/krist-miller-scientist-dfo-muzzled-1.3308549

Let's be clear here.  Government scientists are civil servants first and foremost, not scientists and as such are subject to all of the restrictions that apply to civil servants when it comes to flapping your lips in public.  Having a magical PhD does not grant one immunity from the rules.  Quite frankly, as a former civil servant, I was embarrassed at the whining.  If those scientists want to be able to speak whenever and to whoever they want, they're welcome to leave the Public Service.  If they continue to accept the Crown's shilling, they'll abide by the Crown's rules.  Sheesh  :

And these new rules were put into place for what were quite obviously political purposes. Any government that uses the civil service for political ends so openly should expect an outcry. Becoming a civil servant does not mean you give up your right to speak out. It's offensive to classify what they were doing as "whining." They're duty-bound to collect and analyse data, conduct research and whatever else scientists do for the benefit of Canada. If they can't do their jobs effectively due to government interference, good on them for making it known.

I think we can be thankful that these people aren't as ready to defer to authority as you. Personally, if I had spent years studying to become a specialist in my field, and had been published in scientific journals of record I wouldn't flinch if some 30-something political appointee starts telling me who I can talk to.

 

[Flavus101]

As George said, good on the people who came in and started enforcing the rules. That goes to both the past conservative government and the current Liberal one. If you do not like the rules, work within the system to change them.

As for the links you posted, I only read the first one and saw that it was clearly pushing an agenda against the keystone XL pipeline.

 

[cavalryman]

I think we can be thankful that these people aren't as ready to defer to authority as you. Personally, if I had spent years studying to become a specialist in my field, and had been published in scientific journals of record I wouldn't flinch if some 30-something political appointee starts telling me who I can talk to.

I think you need to watch (or re-watch) Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.  Your understanding of how the civil service works is faulty, but don't let that keep you from a good, soul-cleansing rant.  >

 

[George Wallace]

First you say this:

............. They're duty-bound to collect and analyse data, conduct research and whatever else scientists do for the benefit of Canada.

NOTE:  FOR THE BENEFIT OF CANADA, not personal gain or other reasons that are NOT construed as being in the interest of CANADA and its' proprietary rights.

Does this not sound like you are of the belief that they are being irresponsible and negligent in fulfilling their "contractual" committments?

I think we can be thankful that these people aren't as ready to defer to authority as you. Personally, if I had spent years studying to become a specialist in my field, and had been published in scientific journals of record I wouldn't flinch if some 30-something political appointee starts telling me who I can talk to.

There is no problem with 'you' as a scientist, or anyone, being self employed and publishing or creating intellectual property that belongs to you.  However, if you are employed by the Government, or Industry, your work for them is their intellectual property and they write the 'Rules' as to how it is protected.  If you can not accept this simple fact of Law, I think you really have a serious problem.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let's be clear here.  Government scientists are civil servants first and foremost, not scientists first and foremost, and as such are subject to all of the restrictions that apply to civil servants when it comes to flapping your lips in public.  Having a magical PhD does not grant one immunity from the rules.  Quite frankly, as a former civil servant, I was embarrassed at the whining.  If those scientists want to be able to speak whenever and to whoever they want, they're welcome to leave the Public Service.  If they continue to accept the Crown's shilling, they'll abide by the Crown's rules.  Sheesh  :

And if they go to work for a civie firm and spill their guts, they'll likely be fired with prejudice and if the transgression is serious enough or contains proprietary information, they will likely end up in court and, maybe, prison.

I have no doubt that they signed a non disclosure clause with the government as they would have been required to to work for anyone else.


Another case of self proclaimed elitists thinking they are actually more important that they really are.

 

[ModlrMike]

Of course the whole thing could have been as simple as:

1. we have professional staff to speak to the press; and
2. if you do speak to the pres, stay in your lane.

This could easily be taken as muzzling by some folks.

 

[YZT580]

And these new rules were put into place for what were quite obviously political purposes. Any government that uses the civil service for political ends so openly should expect an outcry. Becoming a civil servant does not mean you give up your right to speak out. It's offensive to classify what they were doing as "whining."  a

Two things:  all governments use the civil service for political purposes.  They also use science reports for political purposes and they do not want to have some self-centred puffed up petty polar bear specialist ruining their political points by intruding with a contrary opinion; especially if they are payying the salary of that specialist.  That applies to both government and private industry and schools. If you think differently pause and remember the Western University professor who got castigated for daring to suggest that ladies were statistically less capable than gentlemen in certain scientific fields and visa versa incidentally but that part of the conversation was conveniently ignored.

The second point is very simple: a civil servant forfeits the right to voice his/her opinion on issues concerning government policy the day he signs on.  No exceptions! Fortunately for a lot of loud-mouths the government rarely enforces this issue.

 

[George Wallace]

And these new rules were put into place for what were quite obviously political purposes. Any government that uses the civil service for political ends so openly should expect an outcry. Becoming a civil servant does not mean you give up your right to speak out. It's offensive to classify what they were doing as "whining."  a

Two things:  all governments use the civil service for political purposes.  They also use science reports for political purposes and they do not want to have some self-centred puffed up petty polar bear specialist ruining their political points by intruding with a contrary opinion; especially if they are payying the salary of that specialist.  That applies to both government and private industry and schools. If you think differently pause and remember the Western University professor who got castigated for daring to suggest that ladies were statistically less capable than gentlemen in certain scientific fields and visa versa incidentally but that part of the conversation was conveniently ignored.

That sounds very tinfoil hatish to me and ignorant of the Law.

The second point is very simple: a civil servant forfeits the right to voice his/her opinion on issues concerning government policy the day he signs on.  No exceptions! Fortunately for a lot of loud-mouths the government rarely enforces this issue.

So?  Because the Government enforced the issue, as opposed to ignoring "loud-mouths", they are muzzling scientists?  WTF are you using for logic?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Becoming a civil servant does entail certain restrictions on what you can talk about. That includes scientists. Studies and research done on behalf of the government (employer) is the sole property of said government, not the scientist. The employer has a right to determine what information is released and when. Civil servants are not free to go gabbing about anything they want.

 

[George Wallace]

recceguy

Those FACTS have been stated several times and ignored by a few die-hard 'objectors' in this thread; but if they deny the facts enough, they hope to make their views valid......Which they aren't.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Seems the new government is caught in a sandwich of their own making between First Nations and some Scientists regarding Site C. It would appear that people took their election promises at face value.....

Frankly after dealing with many scientists, I can't imagine why people think sunshine flows from their posterior, many are arrogant, dangerous, only knowledgeable in their field and are easy marks for cons. 

 

[YZT580]

Please explain what a tin-foil hat is.  Also, I did not say that they were muzzling scientists.  I was simply reiterating the fact that a civil servant does not have the right to speak out on whatever issue he wants: regardless of his educational qualifications