
Nine years of censorship - michaelmachine
http://www.nature.com/news/nine-years-of-censorship-1.19842
======
6stringmerc
Personally when I read about this kind of censorship it reminds me that these
types of people - those craving power, and willing to go to great lengths to
achieve it as an ends unto itself, with apparently little regard for the
notion of serving the general public - also want access to every citizen's
communications, whereabouts, and under the auspices of security,
safety...peace...

Well, in a world where information wants to be free - good information and
exposes, and even bad information like debunked anti-vaccine hoopla - those
who seek to control it should be viewed suspiciously. In the case of the
Harper government actions, suspicion can easily be revised to "clear agenda
and manipulation to those ends" which, you know, sounds a lot worse on paper.
What a horrible way to treat scientists, really, just a terribly pig-headed
and shamlessly pandering approach by the Harper government to please who they
felt needed pleasing.

------
kamran20
At one point, a brawny ‘minder’ had actually accompanied her to a public
hearing to make sure that she didn’t break the rules This kind of thing should
NEVER be allowed to happen. The scientists are paid from public funds. That
information is our right. This should upset anyone reading it.

------
Raphmedia
I find it sad that from the title alone "Nine years of censorship", I was able
to say to myself "oh, that's my country they are talking about! Canada!"

------
thesimpsons1022
how does something like this happen in a "free" western country like Canada?
And why isn't there more outrage about it? This is appalling to say the least.
I knew I didn't like Harper but I didn't realize he was so totalitarian.

~~~
vkou
There was plenty of outrage - alas, the Conservatives could secure a majority
government with only 38% of the vote.

That 38% of the population doesn't care, or endorse this kind of behavior.

------
tdaltonc
Maybe one day Springer, the publisher who owns Nature, will also stop
suppressing scientific research.

------
alex20
I had friends who supported the muzzling. "They are just trying to spark
propaganda and brainwash our society" was what one in particular said.

I just dropped the subject from there on out :|

~~~
bcpermafrost
Its crazy that people think that throwing out documented statistics and facts
is brainwashing.

I hate tinfoil hat conspiracies. Its starting to plague society and get people
disconnected from problems that need immediate attention.

Its good you dropped the subject, there's just no reasoning with them.

~~~
philovivero
It would be good to remember that a vast majority of people don't respond to
reason. They respond to emotion. If you make someone feel good about your
argument, they will agree with your argument.

It seem the more likely one is to want to help society, the less likely that
person understands this fundamental aspect of human nature.

And so somehow the ones who really GET IT are the ones in power, and the ones
who don't want to make anything better.

It's so refreshing when you find a persuader in charge of everything who also
wants to make everything better, like say Duterte in the Philippines, for
example.

~~~
intended
The ones who get it are also the ones who stick with the concept of doing good
long enough, to learn the facts you mentioned.

------
osweiller
This was a government worker's union issue that got absurdly bent out of
proportion.

The government demanded that government _employees_ get approval for any
direct communications with media, etc. This all began when a researcher
seriously impacted the salmon industry by releasing extremely preliminary
results (that turned out to be wrong), making a name for herself and setting
up a PR circuit. The media loves apocalyptic outcomes ("So would you say this
means that we're all going to die?"), so of course it made headlines with the
most dire of predictions.

This was not an independent researcher. This was not the private sector. This
was someone directly employed by the government. It's like a Microsoft
employee wrote about vulnerabilities in Windows on their private blog,
offering to sell solutions.

So the government put a process in place not unlike much of the Western world,
doing nothing to control the science (papers were published, research was
released, etc. The scientific world understands that preliminary results are
preliminary), but having everything to do with the message relayed to the
media. Of course this was met with a conspiratorial narrative that continues
to this day: That they were hiding dire greenhouse gas/global warming
information, for instance.

But the shackles have come off. Where are all of these dramatic scientific
findings that were suppressed?

...crickets...

The single example constantly floated is about a guy who got called by a
reporter about a paper he released about ~~slime mold~~ rock snot (the
exampled floated in literally hundreds of articles about the muzzling of
scientists). This government scientist was outraged that he couldn't get
approval within 24 hours, and the reporter lost interest. Apparently rock snot
is a real timely issue in media circles.

There was a _lot_ wrong with the prior government. An enormous amount. By this
particular story is about some freelancing employees who don't want anyone
telling them what to do.

~~~
laughinghan
> But the shackles have come off. Where are all of these dramatic scientific
> findings that were suppressed?

The very article you're responding to mentions 3 specific examples of
politically sensitive research that were affected by the policy, including the
article's featured example about salmon.

> The single example constantly floated is about a guy who got called by a
> reporter about a paper he released about slime mold.

Of the 4 examples mentioned in the original article (3 specific examples, 1
shark scientist mentioned in passing), none of them are this "constantly
floated" example, it isn't even mentioned in passing. Nor is it mentioned in
either of the articles that my sibling comment linked to.

This is a bizarre response.

~~~
osweiller
_The very article you 're responding to mentions 3 specific examples of
politically sensitive research _

But all three demonstrate nothing being suppressed. It points to two people
who claim to have left their jobs (moved elsewhere/retired) because of these
restrictions (although unburdened they apparently had no big reveal, or even
an anecdote about anything being suppressed. But polar bears or something --
the casual allusion being entirely manipulative and intentional), and a salmon
researcher who released all of their science, including publication in
Science, but couldn't give soundbites as an official representative of the
government of Canada. Exactly as I stated, this is a union/workplace issue,
and people having grievances about workplace policies, with shockingly little
to say about how it actually impacted science.

 _including its featured example about salmon._

That was the beginning (it was literally the first example of communications
policies interfering in someone's feeling of being a freelancer). The salmon
industry was already sensitive, and with great fanfare the PR circus began for
a paper in Science. The government was sensitive about the _misrepresentation_
of science, not about the science. Again, the paper was published. The science
was documented. The same person was presenting at a Salmon inquiry. But they
couldn't provide soundbites without it being considered and controlled.

EDIT: Two hours in, and for the many, many down arrows I've gotten by people
showing how strongly they feel about this, it's notable that the combined
examples of suppressed science catalogued thus far: __ZERO __.

~~~
chris_wot
> _The government was sensitive about the misrepresentation of science, not
> about the science._

What, it was worried that the scientist would misrepresent their own research?
That's ridiculous!

In a scientific paper, a theory is hypothesised, an experiment designed, data
and observations conducted and a conclusion is formed. That conclusion, based
on the observations and data collected by the scientist, is analysis.

What you are saying is that the scientist will misrepresent their own
conclusions.

Let's put that another way: you are saying that the scientist will
misrepresent science by contradicting their own conclusions.

Another way of putting it, just to be clear: the scientist will publish their
conclusions in a paper, then tell the media the exact opposite of their
conclusions. Either by mistake or because they are lying.

You seem to be surprised by the incredulity your post is generating. There's
why!

~~~
caseysoftware
To suggest that scientists would _never_ misrepresent their work because
"science!" is naive at best.

Scientists are human. They are not above human motivations - both good and bad
- related to their work, their stature, and their jobs. Funding can be based
on certain results. Getting published can be based on certain results.

This is why making experiments and studies that are reproducible is so
important.

~~~
chris_wot
Reproducibility is important, but not to check that what a scientist says
about their own work is accurate. To verify the accuracy of what a scientist
says about their own work you merely have to read their work.

That said, however, I _am_ actually saying that it's unlikely that a scientist
would misrepresent their own published findings. Perhaps it may occur - but if
that happened then the government of the day could discipline the scientist
who misrepresented their work. They would have to prove it.

What I find _more_ naive is that a media relations person, employed by the
government to portray them in the best light, would not misrepresent the work
of the scientist.

Who would you want the reporter to speak to: the person employed to protect
the reputation of the government of the day, or the scientist who did the
actual work?

------
blue_dinner
well, the same thing happens when people would like to discuss alternative
theories to the causes of climate change. The BBC, for instance, outright bans
anyone that talks about it (and so do many other forums), which is outright
censorship.

We should be fighting for the freedom to discuss any topic, not just a select
few that matches up with the current narrative.

~~~
mediumdeviation
That's funny, because in 2014 the BBC was admonished by independent reviewers
for giving too much airtime to climate change deniers under their 'too rigid'
impartiality guidelines [1].

From the Telegraph [2]

> The BBC’s determination to give a balanced view has seen it pit scientists
> arguing for climate change against far less qualified opponents such as Lord
> Lawson who heads a campaign group lobbying against the government’s climate
> change policies. Andrew Montford, who runs the Bishop Hill climate sceptic
> blog, former children’s television presenter Johnny Ball and Bob Carter, a
> retired Australian geologist, are among the other climate sceptics that have
> appeared on the BBC.

I think I agree with the BBC's own comedian's take on this, which is to give
each side time proportional to the amount of support they have from experts in
the field. In other words, for every ten minutes of airtime for climate
experts on climate change caused by humans, we can have 18 seconds, or 3% of
climate skeptics speaking.

[1]: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2014/07/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2014/07/07/bbc-admonished-for-giving-climate-change-deniers-equal-air-
time/)

[2]:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10944629/B...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10944629/BBC-
staff-told-to-stop-inviting-cranks-on-to-science-programmes.html)

~~~
sudojudo
Asimov summed it up nicely:

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means
that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Except anti-intellectualism is hard to define. Not too long ago saying
anything critical of communism got you put in re-education work camps for
life, jailed, tortured, or killed in many countries. Now it just gets you
downvotes from true believers. Afterall, communism was run by the intellectual
class quoting Marx, and if you disagreed with Marx then you were an uneducated
person.

Everyone thinks they're the intellectuals. Even the people prescribing
thalidomide to pregnant women. A strong sense of skepticism should be
encouraged, not mocked, and appeals to authority should be seen as invalid on
their face.

~~~
zanny
It actually is not that complicated, at least on the "everyone thinks they are
intellectuals". The moment you think you are so right you should be
suppressing other peoples right to speak on the matter, you are immediately
_not_ the intellectual, you are just a tyrant.

------
duncan_bayne
Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. In this case, the sword is
State power.

Researchers are perfectly happy for the might of the State to underpin
coercive taxation, because it directly funds their jobs. But they complain
loudly enough when a fraction of that might is used to constrain their freedom
of expression.

I think the move to un-muzzle State scientists is a good thing. But I have
little sympathy for their complaints, either, given the way they're funded.

------
intrasight
Hopefully some day US scientists will be granted the same freedom to discuss
their research.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Uh what is Obama suppressing exactly here? If anything, the US has one of the
most, if not the most open and prolific science publishing in history.

Does every HN political post need a highly upvoted 'But the US is worse' cite-
less snarking?

~~~
Retric
Much of this stuff is not visible. Back in the No Child left behind days some
people relatively high up in the administration where harassing a researcher
based on her research. I found this out from one of her graduate students not
the news.

I don't recall all the details, but a large part of the push was centered
around a politically connected company selling some education materials. And
the research suggested that approach was not useful.

Now extend that to issues people actually care about and I suspect a lot of
this stays under the radar.

