Canadian government is anti-science.

[jeskill]

I just read in the news today that the Canadian government has decided to stop funding the experimental lakes. In case you didn't know, these lakes have been used since the 1960s to study ecosystem-scale questions. Groundbreaking research has been performed here and is still being performed, including studies on the effect of acid rain, eutrophication caused by pollution (research from this project was used to successfully remove phosphorus from detergents), and studies on endocrine disrupters, to name a few. And what's the government spending its money on instead? Oh, new fighter jets.

 

It's just another example of the anti-science/anti-data shenanigans of the Conservative party in Canada. PM Stephen Harper has halved Statistics Canada and gotten rid of the long-form census (because who needs data when you have God to help you make policy decisions, right?), he's slashed Parks and Services Canada and decreased the number of officers responsible for regulating the oil and gas industry (because they can totally be trusted to do the right thing).

And then, of course, there're the whole shale gas and asbestos problems. I actually emailed Gary Goodyear a year ago, asking him why we're still producing asbestos. His response was that:

For over thirty years, the Government of Canada has promoted the safe and controlled use of chrysotile, both domestically and internationally. All scientific reviews clearly confirm that chrysotile fibres can be used safely under controlled conditions, and that the illnesses we are currently seeing are linked to past high-level exposures and to inappropriate uses that have been discontinued since the late 1970s.

TOTAL B.S. I sent him some peer-reviewed papers that said the exact opposite, and he didn't respond. Of course.

To top it off, they get away with this crap because apathetic Canadians are too busy being blinded by the bloody circus down south. Like I really care to watch a drawn out primary and election that costs trillions of dollars when the rest of the world is falling to pieces. AHHHHHHH!

[Phi for All]

So sorry to hear that our virus has infected you. It's a virulent, combination virus that attacks the majority of the body while benefiting only small, special regions.

 

It attacks your social systems, hoping to siphon off resources that the small, special regions can use to their advantage. Those regions don't use the social systems, so they don't want their taxes paying for them.

 

Simultaneously, the virus attacks your economic systems, forcing the free market principals to be channeled into areas where they can be exploited by the special regions. The result is a weakened body overall, with little immunity to further attacks.

 

It's easy to understand why wealthy people who own their own pools and send their children to private schools don't want their taxes to pay for community pools and public education. It's less easy to understand why they want to stifle scientific efforts to benefit humanity and our environment as a whole, simply because it costs their businesses more to comply with fair regulation aimed at long-range prosperity. To me, it's like putting a rope around your neck that slowly tightens while you gorge yourself on as much of the pie as you can steal from your fellow humans.

[jeskill]

It's less easy to understand why they want to stifle scientific efforts to benefit humanity and our environment as a whole, simply because it costs their businesses more to comply with fair regulation aimed at long-range prosperity.

It's objectivism gone wild. Seriously.

It's interesting, because Harper (the prime minister of Canada) won't touch health care with a 10-foot pole. He knows that it would cause an uproar. But science? Most people don't have the scientific background to care or even understand how these decisions are going to affect them. For example, I bet Canadians know more about Rick Santorum than they do about the effect of shale gas extraction on the environment.

[Xittenn]

People might hate on me for this but, I vote for the planes. I have no idea who Rick Santorum is, I appreciate what research on the environmental effects of shale gas extraction presents, but I think we need to upgrade our damn planes. I mean it's really nice of the American's to do much of the patrolling of our nation, but I believe it is irresponsible to ignore our military needs. It would be nice if we could manufacture our own planes, but I believe these will at the very least keep our military responsibilities satiated at a bare minimum standard. It would be my preference that we maintain 70% of America's military position with respect to our population ratio, which of course, will never happen.

[jeskill]

Yeah, I kinda disagree with you.

 

In truth, my issue is not so much about the planes themselves, but the assumption that regulating institutions and data collectors are more expendable than planes. A government needs to balance protecting its citizens from both internal and external threats, and it needs to balance immediate needs with long-term needs. I have a hard time believing we're going to use those fighter jets for anything useful -- who is going to attack us in the near future? But reduced water quality, air-borne pollutants, and environmental damage to our fishing and timber industries are actually real and current threats to Canadians. We need to regulate and protect our water, food, and health, and environment, and we do need to understand the risks to our health, food, water, and base industries.

 

Harper is actively (and seemingly deliberately) reducing the amount of available data and evidence-based analysis (i.e. cutting the ELA, cutting Stats Canada, cutting fisheries). He is gutting environmental protection -- showing that he's more concerned with short-term gains than long-term sustainability. These actions have a higher chance of causing harm to Canadians that any external military threat. If we have no capacity to regulate the oil and gas industry, then we're going to have more pollution-based health problems. And if we have no data to show that something, such as gas fumes, or some water-borne pollutant, is causing a health problem, then we can't actually do anything about it.

 

Edit to say: I'm glad to hear you don't know who Rick Santorum is. Suggestion: don't google him.

Edited May 19, 2012 by jeskill

[jeskill]

Does this happen in other "democratic" countries? Should it?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/06/14/ns-parks-canada-letter-warning.html

 

Parks Canada employees across the country have received letters warning they're not allowed to criticize the agency or the federal government.

 

...

 

"If the government's doing cuts, the only message you're getting on that are their prepared media lines on the cuts. And most government departments aren't going to come out and say, 'Our cuts are going to reduce the services to Canadians, or they're going to close this office, or you're going to have a harder time qualifying for unemployment insurance.'"

[Anders Hoveland]

I can see this thread is filled with plenty of liberalism.

 

I strongly care about the environment and believe the government should have the responsibility to protect it.

But I am also in favor of freedom, an individuals right to choose. I generally think it is wrong to tell people what products they can and cannot use.

 

I think scientists got enough scientific data out of those lakes. The irony is that in the very quest to save lakes, these scientists horribly polluted the research lakes. How much is the cleanup for their little project going to cost? The conservatives are just cutting funding for these scientists because they just keep churning out study after study for the environmentalists to use to complain about the policies of the Conservatives. What do you expect?

 

The development of fighter jets can also help advance science. Research needs to be done, particularly on aerodynamics and new metal alloys. There is also a burgeoning field of energetic chemistry seeking to find better explosives for the military. Some of this energetic research has already had civilian applications, protective car airbags for example.

[jeskill]

I have no idea how your first two paragraphs relate to the previous posts, other than to ad hominem attack views that disagree with your own. As for the third, I fail to see how studying the impacts of cage aquaculture (which is a huge industry in Canada), mercury and nanosilver on the ecosystem is unimportant.

 

Furthermore, the Canadian government is not "developing" new fighter jets. They are buying F-35 fighter jets from the United States.

[iNow]

People who blindly attack "liberalism" don't tend to worry much about facts, logic, or coherence. It's sort of par for the course.

[Arete]

The conservatives are just cutting funding for these scientists because they just keep churning out study after study for the environmentalists to use to complain about the policies of the Conservatives.

 

Oh no! Can't let the data/reality set our agendas and dictate policy decisions instead of our opinions now, can we?

 

Stop the experiments, before they find out we're wrong!

Edited June 15, 2012 by Arete

[Jebus]

Well, has anyone here read the Budget? Not one single plane has been paid for, though billions of dollars are being added to research and development. Genomics Canada is receiving an additional 60 million for their groundbreaking research, 110 million dollars are being added per year to the NRC, 105 million for forestry environment, 500 million over 5 years for advanced research infrastructure and a whole lot more.

 

"Since 2006, the Government has provided nearly $8 billion in new funding for initiatives to support science, technology and the growth of innovative firms."

The Canadian government is not anti-science.

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/plan/chap3-1-eng.html#a3

Edited July 2, 2012 by Jebus

[jeskill]

Billions of dollars are being added to research and development? I disagree.

 

First of all, Genomics Canada is NOT receiving an additional 60 million.Their previous annual budget was 160 million; their budget now is $60 million for the next two years. While NSERC has received more funding, that funding is mostly earmarked for "business-led, industry-leading research". It's all well and good to fund research that can be used to stimulate the private sector, but they're gutting basic research, environmental research, and environmental protection in the process. How is it pro-science to decrease funding for basic research and evidence-based environmental protection?

Edited July 3, 2012 by jeskill

[Jebus]

I never said that the government's decisions are pro-science. I just don't think it's fair to label them anti-science based on the most recent budget.

 

Your right about Genome Canada, I thought it was additional funding. However, last year's budget WAS an additional 65 million to it's current (2010-11) budget.

 

To be honest, I wished they didn't cut basic/environmental research but they have to implement some cuts to decrease the debt.

[JohnB]

Does this happen in other "democratic" countries? Should it?

 

In answer to the first part, yes it does. It is in fact pretty standard. And to the second part, also yes.

 

People who work for the gov are often in possession of privileged inside information and this information can have economic consequences if released. Think of it like "Insider Trading", if a parks officer knew that 100 square miles of forest was about to be cut down to allow for a huge solar plant and the information got out then various groups would be vying for opportunities to make a killing.

 

Similarly it is the tradition in Westminster based Parliments that public servants be free to give "Full, frank, fair and fearless" advice to government Ministers and to do that they must remain neutral. As soon as they become associated with one side or the other then their advice is no longer "fair" as it is automatically biased. Yes it's a trade off, but a good one. The public servant promises to give the most honest and unbiased advice s/he can and the government promises not to sack him/her for giving that advice. Give compromised or biased advice and you deserve to be sacked.

 

There is also the difficulty of separating the person from their position. A good example here is the head of the GISS, Dr James Hansen. While he might be speaking as an individual he is always announced as a department head from NASA. So when he speaks, is it as "James Hansen" or is he speaking for "NASA"?

 

Oh no! Can't let the data/reality set our agendas and dictate policy decisions instead of our opinions now, can we?

 

Both sides of politics are guilty of this and good government relies on the independence of the public service. The people of Victoria learned a couple of years ago what happens when you let the green advocates be the major advisors on policy. The insanity is that after a death toll in the hundreds the greens still think that their policies are right.

Edited July 4, 2012 by JohnB

[jeskill]

Jebus: To be fair, I started labeling the current party-in-power "anti-science" after I had the asbestos discussion with Gary Goodyear (described in the OP), after I learned of GG's misconceptions about evolution, after the long-form census was scrapped, and after a climate change scientist and a fisheries scientist were not allowed to discuss their findings with the public.

 

That being said, I do think this recent budget shows very clearly that the current ruling party is not interested in scientific research that does not immediately benefit private businesses. A pro-science agenda, in my view, would be one that seeks to maximize all scientific inquiry that benefits all Canadians (not just businesses) now and in the future.

 

JohnB: I understand your point in the first section, and I agree, for the most part. I think the reason why some Canadians are concerned about this is because there have been clear cases where scientific research has been suppressed by the government. I don't think that the ruling party should be allowed to suppress data that potentially affects Canadians. For example:

 

http://skepticalscie...Scientists.html

In 2006, an Environment Canada scientist in Ottawa was blocked from speaking about his novel on climate change at the National Press Club by the Environment Ministry.

Also: http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-16861468

The most notorious case is of that of Dr Kristi Miller, who is head of molecular genetics for the Department for Fisheries and Oceans. Dr Miller had been investigating why salmon populations in western Canada were declining. ….

 

According to Ms Munro, because reporters were denied the opportunity to question Dr Millerabout her work, important public policy issues went unanswered.

 

It seems pretty clear that Harper is controlling the message because the scientists are churning out data with results that he doesn't like -- results that are "anti-business". Harper doesn't want there to be evidence out there that contradicts his policies.

 

From you:

People who work for the gov are often in possession of privileged inside information and this information can have economic consequences if released. Think of it like"Insider Trading", if a parks officer knew that 100 square miles offorest was about to be cut down to allow for a huge solar plant and theinformation got out then various groups would be vying for opportunities tomake a killing.

 

I don't understand how something like this SHOULDN'T be public.The government is not a for-profit corporation. It's supposed to be working inthe best interests of the people that elected it. If they do things under the cloak of secrecy, how can the people hold them accountable?

Edited July 5, 2012 by jeskill

[Jebus]

Jebus: To be fair, I started labeling the current party-in-power "anti-science" after I had the asbestos discussion with Gary Goodyear (described in the OP), after I learned of GG's misconceptions about evolution, after the long-form census was scrapped, and after a climate change scientist and a fisheries scientist were not allowed to discuss their findings with the public.

 

That being said, I do think this recent budget shows very clearly that the current ruling party is not interested in scientific research that does not immediately benefit private businesses. A pro-science agenda, in my view, would be one that seeks to maximize all scientific inquiry that benefits all Canadians (not just businesses) now and in the future.

 

Your criticism of the governments suppression of any type of scientific inquiry is perfectly warranted, and I agree Gary Goodyear is incompetent for his role, however, the ruling party has helped fund major advances in the Sciences that were NOT directed to business only. in 2011, Canadian research in higher education (per capita) was higher than any other G7 nation (although for the US data was for 2004, I think). Like I mentioned before, they committed and are still committing millions to Genome Canada, (a non-profit organization) the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, "35 million over five years, to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to support excellence in climate and atmospheric research," and 100 million for neuroscience. I think the reason for this years budget being less is due to the economy.

 

The government is under pressure to get people working. Which is why they are (for this year) mainly interested in research directly affecting business. It's hard to sell basic research to voters if they don't see a direct effect. Not all Canadians are scientifically literate and don't understand research should be funded to all areas of science, so the government is being very picky on who gets the funding.

 

 

 

 

 

[jeskill]

Well, we might have to agree to disagree. I am strongly opposed to budget changes that decrease environmental protection, regardless of economic pressures. I think this is a short-term fix that has long-term negative implications for both our ability to innovate in the future and our ability to sustain our natural resources.

[mrorville1]

If only there was a government where only the most qualified were allowed to take part in.

[JohnB]

I don't understand how something like this SHOULDN'T be public.The government is not a for-profit corporation. It's supposed to be working inthe best interests of the people that elected it. If they do things under the cloak of secrecy, how can the people hold them accountable?

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. While it should be out in the open, it should also be done through channels. In the example I gave of forest clearing it should be released, but by an official spokesperson and not by any Joe who wants to sound off. Basically anybody who isn't specifically employed in an "announcing" position is expected to keep their trap shut.

 

The other simple fact is that governments sometimes do things that are not legal. It's not nice, it sure ain't pretty but it is how the world works. The general public are much happier if they don't know all the gory details of what their government does. Allowing general commentary from general public servants gets in the way of this and could compromise ongoing operations.