Scientists protest on Parliament Hill

[Bartdude]

Curious as to peoples' take on this....government supporters are dismissing the protesters as "leftists" and "unionists" and questioning their "scientific credentials". Supporters of the protest say the government is cutting science and research funding/facilities to eliminate information that clashes with the government's economic agenda.

I do have a couple friends who work for Parks Canada and Environment Canada, and they say they're basically being gutted and/or burned to the ground. So is it normal reducing of the civil service and belt-tightening - or ideologically/politically motivated government engineering?


Scientists take aim at Harper cuts with ‘death of evidence’ protest on Parliament Hill
Terry Pedwell
Last updated Tuesday, Jul. 10, 2012 05:28PM EDT

Hundreds of scientists stepped away from their petri dishes on Tuesday to denounce what they say are the Harper government’s sweeping cuts to research.

Flanked by supporters, the white-coated scientists marched through downtown Ottawa to Parliament Hill for a mock funeral marking “the death of evidence.”

They carried placards that read “No Science, No Evidence, No Truth,” and “Save ELA,” referring to the experimental lakes area that recently had its funding cut.

A central theme of the rally was the planned closure of the ELA, a research station in Ontario that produces critical data used to combat acid rain and phosphate pollution in lake water. Without government funding, it is slated to close in 2013.

“The experimental lakes area is a world-class, living, outdoor laboratory where scientists have studied how to protect freshwater for decades,” said Maude Barlow, head of the Council of Canadians and a former senior adviser on water to the UN General Assembly.

“The Harper government is shaming Canadians in the eyes of the world and killing a major gift to water science at the very moment we are really beginning to understand the depth of the global water crisis.”

But the protesters also decried the Conservative government’s overall economic agenda, which they say puts the environment at risk for the sake of creating jobs.

The Conservatives make no apologies for wanting to focus scientific research in areas where money and jobs can be made.

Canada has been lagging behind other nations in terms of applied scientific research and putting it to commercial use, said a government official who didn’t want to be identified.

“Our government is taking steps to correct that — but not at the expense of basic research,” said the official.

Gary Goodyear, minister of state for science and technology, defended the government, saying the Tories have made historic investments in science, technology and research to create jobs and grow the economy.

“This year . . . we enhanced federal government support for leading-edge research including $500 million — over five years — for the Canada Foundation for Innovation,” Mr. Goodyear said in an emailed statement.

But the protesters said Conservatives policies weaken or abolish scientific institutions, in the name of making it easier to develop natural resources.

The Council of Canadians, which sponsored the rally, said scientific evidence is being destroyed through cuts to critical programs at the National Research Council, Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Katie Gibbs, a PhD student in the biology department at the University of Ottawa, who opened the mock funeral service, said it was “to commemorate the untimely death of evidence in Canada.”

“After a long battle with the Harper government, evidence has suffered its final blow.”

But Scott Findlay, associate professor and former director of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Environment, closed the service on a more positive note.

After inviting a procession of scientists to pay their respects by placing books into a makeshift coffin, Mr. Findlay said “evidence is not quite dead, but it is at the very least at death’s door.”

“We can restore evidence, but this will require an effort not only by scientists but by the general public.”


Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

<p>A protestor wearing a Grim Reaper costume stands on Parliament Hill during a rally on July 10, 2012 in <strong>Ottawa</strong> to protest the federal government's cuts to science policies. </p>

The Canadian Press

Ottawa
Scientists take aim at Harper cuts with ‘death of evidence’ protest on Parliament Hill

Terry Pedwell

Published Tuesday, Jul. 10, 2012 02:03PM EDT

Last updated Tuesday, Jul. 10, 2012 05:28PM EDT

Hundreds of scientists stepped away from their petri dishes on Tuesday to denounce what they say are the Harper government’s sweeping cuts to research.

Flanked by supporters, the white-coated scientists marched through downtown Ottawa to Parliament Hill for a mock funeral marking “the death of evidence.”

They carried placards that read “No Science, No Evidence, No Truth,” and “Save ELA,” referring to the experimental lakes area that recently had its funding cut.

A central theme of the rally was the planned closure of the ELA, a research station in Ontario that produces critical data used to combat acid rain and phosphate pollution in lake water. Without government funding, it is slated to close in 2013.

“The experimental lakes area is a world-class, living, outdoor laboratory where scientists have studied how to protect freshwater for decades,” said Maude Barlow, head of the Council of Canadians and a former senior adviser on water to the UN General Assembly.

“The Harper government is shaming Canadians in the eyes of the world and killing a major gift to water science at the very moment we are really beginning to understand the depth of the global water crisis.”

But the protesters also decried the Conservative government’s overall economic agenda, which they say puts the environment at risk for the sake of creating jobs.

The Conservatives make no apologies for wanting to focus scientific research in areas where money and jobs can be made.

Canada has been lagging behind other nations in terms of applied scientific research and putting it to commercial use, said a government official who didn’t want to be identified.

“Our government is taking steps to correct that — but not at the expense of basic research,” said the official.

Gary Goodyear, minister of state for science and technology, defended the government, saying the Tories have made historic investments in science, technology and research to create jobs and grow the economy.

“This year . . . we enhanced federal government support for leading-edge research including $500 million — over five years — for the Canada Foundation for Innovation,” Mr. Goodyear said in an emailed statement.

But the protesters said Conservatives policies weaken or abolish scientific institutions, in the name of making it easier to develop natural resources.

The Council of Canadians, which sponsored the rally, said scientific evidence is being destroyed through cuts to critical programs at the National Research Council, Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Katie Gibbs, a PhD student in the biology department at the University of Ottawa, who opened the mock funeral service, said it was “to commemorate the untimely death of evidence in Canada.”

“After a long battle with the Harper government, evidence has suffered its final blow.”

But Scott Findlay, associate professor and former director of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Environment, closed the service on a more positive note.

After inviting a procession of scientists to pay their respects by placing books into a makeshift coffin, Mr. Findlay said “evidence is not quite dead, but it is at the very least at death’s door.”

“We can restore evidence, but this will require an effort not only by scientists but by the general public.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ce-protest-on-parliament-hill/article4403233/

PS - this thread unofficially dedicated to alaninburnaby

 

[Miss*Bijou]

Do it!!!

http://smackstephenharper.com/

 

[Ray]

I don't think the government owes anyone a living. My opinion.

 

[bcneil]

Scientific research blah.....all the answers are in the holy bible.
Science is bad stuff. Oh except when you need medicine or things that benefit you personally, but in general science bad.

 

[Tugela]

It's about time that they started focusing spending on more practical areas of research. Spending should be focussed on research that generates the sort of infrastructure that will make Canada competitive in the high tech world. Right now that is not happening, and we are in real danger of losing entire industries and the associated skilled personnel that are going to be critical for Canada to be competitive globally in the future.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

Curious as to peoples' take on this....government supporters are dismissing the protesters as "leftists" and "unionists" and questioning their "scientific credentials".

Really? That has to be the most stupid, clueless attempt at justifying the government outrageous disdain for science and scientists. "Leftists"? "Unionists"? Are these people simply morons??

Supporters of the protest say the government is cutting science and research funding/facilities to eliminate information that clashes with the government's economic agenda.

This is not something knew we didn't know about that lying, evil cretin and his army of tools that make up most of his cabinet. The shocking series of decisions and policies concerning anything relating to science has been painfully documented over the past few years. So shocking, it's really hard to understand just how any reasonable person could justify the dishonesty, deceptiveness, secrecy and blatant disregard for anything involving science based evidence that has been happening right under our noses.


It's "Mr-Masters-in-Economics-(NOT-science!)-Prime-Minister-Stephen-Harper" and his creationist "I-don't-believe-in-evolution-its-against-my-religion-SCIENCE-Minister-Gary-Goodyear" whose science credentials are a JOKE and should be questioned!


http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2009/03/17/tech-090317-gary-goodyear-evolution.html

http://canadasworld.wordpress.com/2...mbarrassment-if-anyone-were-paying-attention/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/18/canadian-science-minister-update-kinda/

This from the British scientific journal "Nature" - from Sept. 2010:

Canada must free scientists to talk to journalists

...

new evidence of unacceptable political interference in the public statements of federal government researchers. In short, the information policies of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper are muzzling scientists in their dealings with the media.

What happened to the transparency and accountability promised when the government formed the first of two minority administrations in 2006? Its stated communication policy, posted on a federal website, directed civil servants to "Provide the public with timely, accurate, clear, objective and complete information about its policies, programs, services and initiatives." Yet today, that openness is being held ransom to media messages that serve the government's political agenda.

The signs were there in spring last year, when press reports revealed that climate scientists in the government department Environment Canada were being stymied by Harper's compulsive message control. Our researchers were prevented from sharing their work at conferences, giving interviews to journalists, and even talking about research that had already been published. Carefully researched reports intended for the public — Climate Change and Health, from Health Canada, and Climate Change Impacts, from Natural Resources Canada — were released without publicity, late on Friday afternoons, and appeared on government websites only after long delays. This is not a government that is comfortable with climate change or the implications for action, as its largely obstructionist stance at climate talks has shown.

But it is not just climate-change research that is being targeted. Margaret Munro, a science reporter for PostmediaNews, has uncovered that a policy enacted in March stipulates that all federal scientists must get pre-approval from their minister's office before speaking to journalists who represent national or international media. The pre-approval process requires time-consuming drafting of questions and answers, scrutinized by as many as seven people, before a scientist can be given the go-ahead by the minister's staff. This is to spare the minister 'any surprises'. What kind of politician needs that sort of pampering? And what kind of journalist submits questions for a scientist to a ministerial clearing house? This message manipulation shows a disregard for the values and virtues of both journalism and science, and subverts timely disclosure and access to scientific data.


Full article: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100929/full/467501a.html

Nature journal criticizes Canadian 'muzzling'
Time for Canadian government to set its scientists free, magazine says


One of the world's leading scientific journals is accusing the Harper government of limiting its scientists from speaking publicly about their research.

The journal, Nature, says in an editorial in this week's issue that it's time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.

It notes that Canada and the United States have undergone role reversals in the past six years.

It says the U.S. has adopted more open practices since the end of George W. Bush's presidency, while Canada has gone in the opposite direction.

Nature says policy directives on government communications released through access to information requests reveal the Harper government has little understanding of the importance of the free flow of scientific knowledge.

Two weeks ago, the Canadian Science Writers' Association, the World Federation of Science Journalists and several other groups sent an open letter to Harper, calling on him to unmuzzle federal scientists.

The letter cited a couple of high-profile examples, including one last fall when Environment Canada barred Dr. David Tarasick from speaking to journalists about his ozone layer research when it was published in Nature.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/03/02/nature-science-canada.html

Prime Minister: please stop muzzling scientists and researchers

In an open letter initiated by the various organizations representing science journalists and science communicators, the authors call on Stephen Harper to follow the U.S. lead in letting scientists speak.


Dear Prime Minister Harper,

Over the past four years, journalists and scientists alike have exposed the disturbing practices of the Canadian government in denying journalists timely access to government scientists. Open letters to your government from concerned journalists have been followed by editorials and public lectures calling for improved access. Still, cases of government muzzling of publicly funded scientists continue.

Last fall, Environment Canada prevented Dr. David Tarasick from speaking to journalists about his ozone layer research, work which had been published in the journal Nature. And earlier, the Privy Council Office stopped Kristina Miller, a researcher at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, from granting interviews about her work — findings that had been published in the journal Science — on the causes of sockeye salmon decline in British Columbia.

Despite promises that your majority government would follow principles of accountability and transparency, federal scientists in Canada are still not allowed to speak to reporters without the “consent” of media relations officers. Delays in obtaining interviews are often unacceptable and journalists are routinely denied interviews. Increasingly, journalists have simply given up trying to access federal scientists, while scientists at work in federal departments are under undue pressure in an atmosphere dominated by political messaging.

After several unsuccessful attempts to resolve this issue, our organizations — which represent science journalists and communicators and scientists across Canada and around the world — have agreed to a joint campaign to push for timely and open access to federally funded scientists. Our campaign will use a variety of tools to draw public attention to this issue and to spur your government to tear down the wall that separates scientists, journalists, and the public.

We urge your government to implement a policy of transparent and timely communication, one similar to that introduced in the U.S. recently by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This policy now encourages scientists to speak to the media without any intermediary. It even encourages scientists to express their own opinions, provided they indicate that they are speaking personally and not on behalf of the employer.

Many federal scientists are world-renowned experts in areas such as climatology, agriculture, environment, energy solutions, infectious disease, nanotechnology, engineering, and health care. Their important research in support of public health and security, environmental protection, and economic development costs taxpayers billions of dollars, and is valuable to scientists worldwide. Clearly Canadians have the right to learn more about the science they support and to have unfettered access to the expertise of publicly funded scientists.

Prime Minister, we want freedom of speech for federal scientists because we believe it makes for better journalism, for a more informed public, for a healthier democracy, and it makes it more likely that Canadians will reap the maximum benefit from the research they fund.


http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/02/16/...zling-scientists-and-researchers-open-letter/

Canadian scientists slam weakening of federal Fisheries Act

The majority of freshwater fish at risk of extinction would lose protection


The federal government is sabotaging its own legislated requirement to protect endangered freshwater fish by weakening the Fisheries Act, Canadian scientists say in a letter to be sent to the Harper government Tuesday.

The revisions mean that the majority of freshwater fish and up to 80 per cent of the 71 freshwater species at risk of extinction would lose protection, according to the letter from the 1,000-strong Canadian Society For Ecology and Evolution (CSEE) provided exclusively to The Vancouver Sun.

The letter is signed by Dalhousie University professor Jeffrey Hutchings, a current member and former chairman from 2006-2010 of the federal government's main independent advisory body on species at risk, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).

CSEE is also denouncing the closure of a world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) near Kenora in northwestern Ontario, a decision described in the latest decision of the British magazine Nature as the equivalent of the U.S. shuttering the Los Alamos nuclear physics site.

CSEE member Nick Dulvy, a Simon Fraser University professor who formerly worked as a fisheries scientist in the British government, said the two moves add to his growing alarm about the Harper government's "misuse" of science.

"In my time working in the U.K. government I never saw any sign that any of the behaviour, practice or actions of the Canadian government would be even remotely tolerated," Dulvy, recruited by SFU to become Canada Research Chair in Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, said in an email interview.

The letter, to be sent Tuesday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield, slams the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act in Bill C-38, the omnibus budget implementation bill now being studied by two House of Commons committees.

The legislation would eliminate one of the most powerful environmental components of federal law - the ban on any activity that results in "harmful" alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

It is being replaced by a prohibition against activity that results in "serious" harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery, or any fish that supports one of those three fisheries.

"Serious harm" is defined as the "death of fish" or any "permanent" alteration to, or "destruction" of, fish habitat.

"This revision will remove habitat protection for most of Canada's freshwater fish," Hutchings wrote on behalf of the 1,000 scientists.

"The revision will also impair Canada's ability to fulfill its legislated obligations to prevent the extinction of aquatic species," he added, noting that it's "improbable" that 80 per cent of the 71 wildlife species at risk of extinction would be considered part of, or in support of, the three fisheries.

The change will also end protection for other aquatic life that share habitat with fish, including amphibians, reptiles, mussels, crayfish and "numerous" aquatic plants and insects, according to the letter.

University of B.C. zoology professor Eric Taylor, co-chair of freshwater fishes for the COSEWIC panel advising the government on species at risk, zeroed in on C-38's focus on money-making fisheries.

"It's another knock against the inherent value of biodiversity — of all things, whether or not they have any immediate economic values, and I personally think that is regrettable," said Taylor, who like Hutchings stressed that he's not speaking on behalf COSEWIC, the federal advisory body.

Hutchings said the government is impairing its own legislated responsibilities under the Species At Risk Act (SARA), which states in its preamble that the habitat of species at risk "is key to their conservation."

The letter from the 1,000 scientists also expresses "profound disappointment" in the "surprising and short-sited" decision to shut down the ELA research facility that includes 58 small lakes and their watersheds.

"It provides unparalleled opportunities to undertake whole-ecosystem manipulation experiments," Hutchings wrote.
"There is no comparable research facility in the world."

University of Alberta freshwater researcher David Schindler, who founded ELA in the late 1960s and ran it until 1989, said in an interview that research at the site has led to the removal of phosphorus from detergents and sewage.
"The financial implications of this alone are worth billions of dollars."

Work at the site was also critical in the development of tough acid rain rules, and has "continued to produce results of similar importance in underpinning on endocrine disrupting chemicals, climate change, reservoir design to minimize greenhouse gas output, and mercury control," according to Schindler.

The University of B.C.'s Sarah Otto said in an email exchange that the Experimental Lakes Area in Ontario was the "canary in the gold mine" for the world, and noted that its closure is garnering international attention in the scientific community.
The latest issue of the British journal Nature, titled "Canada's renowned freshwater research site to close," quoted Arizona State University aquatic ecologist Jim Elser saying it is "completely shocking" the government would close the facility.
"It is sort of like the U.S. government shutting down Los Alamos - its most important nuclear-physics site - or taking the world's best telescope and turning it off."

Hutchings noted in the letter that Ashfield has still not responded to a previous letter from his group, sent in March before the legislation was tabled, asking the minister to make public his department's own scientific analysis of the impact of the changes on fish, fish habitat and especially species at risk.


http://www.vancouversun.com/Canadia...+Fisheri es/6691159/story.html#ixzz20HggVz22

Muzzling of federal scientists targeted by campaign



Canadian government scientists are still being hampered from talking to the media about their taxpayer-funded research and that's bad news for the public, say groups representing both journalists and federal scientists.

The groups appealed to delegates at an international meeting of scientists in Vancouver on Friday, arguing that democracy depends on citizens having access to research so they can make informed decisions about government policy.

"If we're talking about policy that's informed by fact, if we're asking people to be critical thinkers, if we're asking people to engage in democratic process and to engage in democracy, it's incumbent of all of us that we make sure the process is transparent," said Kathryn O'Hara, a Carleton University journalism professor.

O'Hara was the moderator of a panel called "Unmuzzling government scientists: How to re-open the discourse" at the annual meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science.

"I don't think it's sustainable, I don't think it's tenable to continue … the way we have so far."

The panel discussion was part of a campaign for more open media access to federal scientists launched this week by the Association des communicateurs scientifiques du Québec, the Association science et bien commun, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Canadian Science Writers' Association, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and the World Federation of Science Journalists.

The government has maintained that its scientists are not being muzzled and journalists have timely access to its researchers.

While introducing the panel, O'Hara expressed disappointment that Gary Goodyear, the minister of state for science and technology, didn't respond to a request to participate in the panel, and that all other federal government officials invited to participate said they were not available.


Government taking control to 'quite incredible extremes'

However, the audience did hear from Postmedia's veteran science journalist Margaret Munro and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, along with Francesca Grifo, a representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists who has worked to improve media access to government scientists in the U.S.

Munro said that during much of her career, it was easy to reach federal scientists to talk about their published research, but in recent years that has changed dramatically. Now, the government is taking control to "quite incredible extremes," she said, citing her own recent experiences and the information she obtained by filing access to information requests about the problem.

Munro said federal scientists face many layers of approval before they can speak to the media, going all the way up to the Privy Council Office.

"It would be sort of like asking the White House," she said.

Approved interviews are taped, but often scientists can't get approval in time for journalists' deadlines or at all. In those cases, journalists instead receive written lines approved by the government, said Munro. She discovered that it's the result of a new government policy that says a single department should speak with one voice.

"Science sort of depends on debate and discussion," she said. "If you only have one voice, you don't have skeptical voice and you don't have proper debate. So I have a bit of a problem with that."

Weaver said most scientists are frustrated with the policies and their inability to speak about their research — some so much so that they are looking for jobs outside the government.

But Grifo offered some hope that things could change. The situation for U.S. government scientists was similar under George W. Bush's administration several years ago, she said. But the Union of Concerned Scientists took a systematic approach to changing things. It studied and scored the scientific integrity policies of different agencies, then used them to create best practice guidelines and encouraged agencies to seek public comments on their draft policies.

Just this week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a new policy that encourages scientists to speak freely and allows them to express their opinions, provided they specify that those opinions are personal and not held by the government.

"That's quite wonderful," she said.

Both Grifo and Munro encouraged Canadians to document cases where scientists and journalists aren't allowed to speak with one another.

"There's been a lot of controversy and I think it's helping," Munro said, noting that there have been recent cases where journalists were surprised to find they were granted access to scientists.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/02/17/science-federal-muzzling-scientists.html

"Unmuzzling government scientists: How to re-open the discourse"

http://www.pipsc.ca/portal/page/portal/website/news/newsreleases/news/072811

 

[Miss*Bijou]

And in Nature journal again earlier in 2012:

Frozen out


Canada’s government should free its scientists to speak to the press, as its US counterpart has.
Media interactions with government scientists have undergone a reversal across North America during the past six years. In the United States, President Barack Obama’s administration has directed federal science agencies to develop integrity policies with clear guidelines for scientists who are approached by journalists.

In December, agencies including the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued guidelines that promote openness with the press. For instance, NOAA and NSF-funded scientists and staff are free to speak to journalists without first seeking the approval of a public-affairs officer. The NSF’s policy states that researchers are free to express their personal views as long as they make clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the agency. And scientists also have right of review over agency publications and press releases that claim to represent their expert opinions. Such policies may not be implemented successfully in all cases, but they show that attitudes have evolved encouragingly since 2006, when charges that then-president George W. Bush’s administration had silenced US government researchers made front-page news.

Over the same period, Canada has moved in the opposite direction. Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party won power in 2006, there has been a gradual tightening of media protocols for federal scientists and other government workers. Researchers who once would have felt comfortable responding freely and promptly to journalists are now required to direct inquiries to a media-relations office, which demands written questions in advance, and might not permit scientists to speak. Canadian journalists have documented several instances in which prominent researchers have been prevented from discussing published, peer-reviewed literature. Policy directives and e-mails obtained from the government through freedom of information reveal a confused and Byzantine approach to the press, prioritizing message control and showing little understanding of the importance of the free flow of scientific knowledge.

The Harper government’s poor record on openness has been raised by this publication before, and Nature’s news reporters, who have an obvious interest in access to scientific information and expert opinion, have experienced directly the cumbersome approval process that stalls or prevents meaningful contact with Canada’s publicly funded scientists. Little has changed in the past two years: rather than address the matter, the Canadian government seems inclined to stick with its restrictive course and ride out all objections.

That position is coming under increasing pressure as a result of the scientific-integrity policies taking shape across the border. The clarity of the US guidelines undercuts the Canadian government’s assertion that its own media policies are adequate and have simply been misunderstood. If the Harper government truly embraces public access to publicly funded scientific expertise, then it should do what the Canadian Science Writers’ Association and several other organizations have called for in a letter sent to the prime minister on 16 February: “implement a policy of timely and transparent communication” like those used by NOAA and the NSF.

The letter coincided with a symposium, ‘Unmuzzling Government Scientists: How to Re-open the Debate’, which was held last week at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, Canada. With the country taking centre stage as the meeting’s host, the Harper government found its media policies in the international spotlight. Scientists and other visitors from around the globe discovered, to their surprise, that Canada’s generally positive foreign reputation as a progressive, scientific nation masks some startlingly poor behaviour. The way forward is clear: it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free. ■



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7387/full/483006a.html

Ms. Kristi Miller was forbidden from discussing her recent salmon-genetics research with the media. As an employee of the federal government, Ms. Miller’s research is funded by Canadian taxpayers and has direct impact on the west coast fishing industry and is relevant to changes in the salmon stocks in the Fraser River in British Columbia. Denying media access to this information under the guise of the Cohen Commission is simply a convenient excuse.

"Government control of information must end and the undermining of Canada's public scientists must stop. Whatever happened to the Harper government’s commitment to transparency?" says Gary Corbett, President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

"This government, by suppressing access to this information, is depriving the Canadian and international scientific communities of significant discoveries. Canadians have a right to the results of research supported by Canadian tax dollars. The findings and benefits of scientific and medical research should be available to all Canadians to enable engaged public policy awareness, debate and development. Canadian scientists must be allowed to publish their research in world renowned journals so that society can advance through their findings and the peer review process."


The PIPSC said Dr. Miller was not the only expert being silenced:


In the past year, media have reported that key federal science based departments and agencies including Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada, have implemented new communications policies that have resulted in an incapacity to communicate sound independent scientific information in a timely fashion.

Canadians consistently rely on accurate scientific information to make informed decisions about everyday life, such as the products they buy, the food they eat, the medicines they administer, even their travel plans.


http://www.pipsc.ca/portal/page/portal/website/news/newsreleases/news/072811

The above and below quote are both in relation to the Salmon virus outrageous trainwreck/Cohen Commission (which would be too long to get into details but it's definitely worth the read if you ever have time - just check out Alexandra Morton's blog - it's really unbelievable and disturbing - and I mean really disturbing.):

Cohen Commission hears explosive testimony on salmon disease
December 16, 2011

After two days of testimony, with one more to come on Monday, the Cohen Commission has heard remarkable assertions about Infectious Salmon Anemia virus in wild and farmed salmon on the B.C. coast. Both the mainstream media and the blogosphere have covered the hearings in detail.

Writing in The Globe and Mail, Mark Hume reported that respected scientists testified they felt "attacked" after reporting they had found ISA virus in samples of sockeye and other salmon.

Dr. Fred Kibenge, chair of the department of pathology and microbiology at the University of Prince Edward Island, was quoted as saying the Canadian Food Inspection Agency appeared to be trying to undermining his credibility.

Hume also wrote that Dr. Kristi Miller said she found herself "isolated" and "pretty alienated" from her colleagues in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since reporting multiple findings of ISAv.

In a December 15 report, Hume quoted Miller as saying that ISAv, or some virus very much like it, has been present in wild and farmed salmon since at least 1986. The B.C. Salmon Farmers Association says the provincial government encouraged Norwegian investment in the industry in the early 1980s. The Association itself was formed in 1984.

On the website EcoWatch, a December 16 post by the Living Oceans Society said ISAv had been found in Prince Edward Island in a "closed, land-locked facility," implying that the virus must have arrived via eggs or smolts. This has been the concern of B.C. wild-salmon advocates -- that imported Atlantic salmon eggs have introduced the disease to the west coast.

On the blog Salmon Guy, a December 16 post cited an email from the CFIA, saying that CFIA and DFO were "turning the PR tide to our favour" -- "Concentrate on the headlines, that's often all that people read or remember."

Meanwhile, Alexandra Morton was blogging that "the CFIA was busily trying to make ISAv disappear." Her earlier posts provided background on the controversy.

And that doesn't even begin to cover the whole issue....
It is way beyond just a "leftist" or "unionist" issue!!!

 

[storm rider]

I read the story in the Calgary Herald the day it ran and the protests and opinions of those protesting did not surprise me at all and they political spin they put on their argument was laughable at best.Those people are bitching and complaining because they are being cut off the public teat they have been suckling on for years and they dont like it.So they try the approach of trying to rally the general public to join their cause and voice outrage in their favour.The whole scientific community created worldwide created the niche job of "climatologist" and others many years back and have been living off the hard work of tax-payers through fear mongering and media manipulation as well as outright lies(climategate anyone)Al Gore the so called "champion of the environment" who flies around the world to his highly paid speaking engagements in a private jet is creating 1000 X more of these supposedly bad greenhouse gas emissions than a single interstate truck driver.....oh but he is saving the environment....well actually all he is doing is raking in as much money as he can to support his lavish lifestyle whilst peddling his influence and grabbing as much power he can.Davis Suzuki is exactly the same....lives the high life via his charitable foundation...nice lavish home and he has 6 kids....no need to worry about the cost of raising 6 kids when you can write your own paychecks.

Global warming/climate change is the biggest sham to be spoon fed to the masses via the fear mongering media and orchestrated by the people who stand to gain the most.

SR

 

[Tugela]

The problem with these people is that they want funding to tell us something we allready know, again. The global warming/environment story is well known and if you believe it or not is up to you. The globe is warming, that is indisputable. The debate is really about to what extent mankind is responsible. That is more of a policy decision, further extensive research is not really required. The people protesting are doing it basically because their career is built around generating more data on the subject, not because more data is needed, but because that is what they do. The issue with that is: allthough more data is being generated, the basic questions have allready been answered, so they want to spend more money to answer the same question over and over again. And of course, they continue to have their well paying job (naturally). Because the questions have allready been answered, additional spending will not generate any significant further value to Canadian society. The research becomes an end to itself, with no real purpose other than to keep doing research.

The position the government is taking is that money is better spent in other areas, which are likely to generate new industry and opportunities in Canada in the long term. There is absolutely no way that climate research is going to do that. They see this as a more constructive use of limited resources in difficult economic times.

 

[Unpossible]

Suzuki is exactly the same....lives the high life via his charitable foundation...nice lavish home and he has 6 kids....no need to worry about the cost of raising 6 kids when you can write your own paychecks.

He doesn't have to worry about the cost of raising 6 kids because he only has 5. The youngest is 32.

 

[Tugela]

[The above and below quote are both in relation to the Salmon virus outrageous trainwreck/Cohen Commission (which would be too long to get into details but it's definitely worth the read if you ever have time - just check out Alexandra Morton's blog - it's really unbelievable and disturbing - and I mean really disturbing.):


And that doesn't even begin to cover the whole issue....
It is way beyond just a "leftist" or "unionist" issue!!!

You probably don't know or realize this, but academia is awash with wingnuts and generally eccentric people. Government research institutes mostly are run like academic institutions and have similar types of people working for them. It is not uncommon for academics to become "true believers" in this or that and adopt very controversial stances. There is also a great deal of poor, unprofessional science carried out in those places. In most academic labs there is little or no accountability for the PI, the only person they are accountable to is themselves. It is extremely common for them to be little islands of egomania. Coupled with personalities that are somewhat out there to start with, you end up with plenty of opportunities for these people to simply be wrong, and they will never admit it.

Research carried out in private industry is generally much more professional. The people there typically are more stable, they are held accountable to the organization and their fellow workers (so being a loose canon is difficult), they generally are much more experienced and they are way better funded (so they do things properly, instead of cutting corners or not being sufficiently thorough because you don't have/can't afford shit). The quality of research that comes out of industry is usually orders of magnitude better than stuff from academic labs. There will be the odd exception, but that is the rule. Allmost all industrial research is never published btw, so you what you do see is just a tiny tip of the iceberg. It is mostly used to form the equivalent of policy, with the small amount of published material acting as a sort of advertising. This is basically how the government is trying to get it's labs to run as well.

A typical academic lab will have a PI who spends most of his/her time writing grants, drinking coffee and travelling to conferences. Most of them never go into a lab again after completing their Ph.D. The actual work is done by a few post docs (who got their Ph.D. 1-3 years before) and an army of graduate students (who have been working in a lab doing research for a few years only). Day to day oversight is minimal, so all of the results are being generated by these very inexperienced people. Cheating and general ignorance of the scientific method and interpretation of data is common in this group. So you end up with a lot of fucked up really bad results. These then go the the PI, who, because they seldom actually go into the lab themselves, have no idea about how poor the quality of the data really is. They fluff it up, sanitize and interpret it based on their vision of the project so they can publish it (necessary, since publication is needed to get more grants). So you end up with a paper getting published that is based on very flimsy evidence but is written by someone who is essentially a professional writer and a salesman, so it sounds really good. Trust me, this happens A LOT. The only people in these labs who have extensive experience are the lab techs, but since they are at the bottom of the food chain they don't have much voice in the process.

The reason the goverment is attempting to institute a review process is because of the academic mentality prevalent in their laboratories. It is necessary to have the same sort of accountability you have in industry to ensure that a level of professionalism is in place, and part of that is that you don't go running around doing your own thing without regard for the consequences. The goverment wants it's own laboratories to be run with the same level of quality you see from industry. That is not unreasonable IMO.