
Canada's Muzzled Scientists Can Speak Freely Again - mathgenius
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/canadas-muzzled-scientists-can-speak-freely-again-so-i-called-a-few-up
======
fche
We'll know this only once government scientists speak out against the
government.

~~~
cperciva
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted, beyond the fact that it challenges
the popular narrative.

The Harper government didn't muzzle scientists because it had an inate hatred
of scientists; it muzzled scientists because it was afraid of what they would
say and the potential for lost votes. Canada's new government doesn't have
that fear, so they have no reason to muzzle government scientists -- but that
doesn't say anything about their principles. A commitment to openness is only
tested when there is something you want to avoid having said.

(Incidentally, I think the "muzzled scientists" issue is somewhat overblown.
Nobody complains about legal-advice privilege creating "muzzled lawyers", and
exactly the same rationale applies to government scientists: If governments
avoid consulting scientists because they're worried about the contents of
their consultations becoming public, we're all worse off for it. This isn't to
say that I think government scientists should be completely muzzled, mind you;
but I think there's a reasonable middle ground between "completely open" and
"completely muzzled" which nonetheless allows for governments to seek
confidential advice from the scientists they employ.)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Nobody complains about legal-advice privilege creating "muzzled lawyers"

The attorney-client privilege belongs to the _client_. The purpose of all the
traditional privileges is to allow the client/patient/parishioner to divulge a
secret while seeking professional advice without having to worry that it will
be published or used against them.

In the case of science, the secret the government wants to keep is not
anything the government had to be encouraged to give the scientists. It's the
result of the scientists' research.

And allowing politicians to choose which scientific research is published is
_catastrophic_. It invalidates everything published by government scientists
because the political filter biases the published results -- intentionally. It
would be better that the research not be done at all than that it be published
only if it aligns with the political goals of elected officials.

~~~
lomnakkus
> And allowing politicians to choose which scientific research is published is
> catastrophic. It invalidates everything published by government scientists
> because the political filter biases the published results -- intentionally.
> It would be better that the research not be done at all than that it be
> published only if it aligns with the political goals of elected officials.

Indeed. There are already enough problems with publication bias -- adding
further bias is _not_ helpful.

------
shaftoe
Does Canada have no protections for freedom of speech?

As an American, the idea of muzzling a scientist is strange. I had thought
Canada was more free than this.

~~~
ovis
Even in America there are restrictions about what federal employees may say to
the media. Freedom of speech is different when you are representing an
employer, although the restrictions on Canadian scientists were egregious.

~~~
pessimizer
> Even in America there are restrictions about what federal employees may say
> to the media.

Not outside of the military except in the case of classified documents or the
identities of covert agents. It's not even illegal for non-government
employees to publish classified documents, as far as I know.

~~~
hackuser
>> Even in America there are restrictions about what federal employees may say
to the media.

> Not outside of the military except in the case of classified documents or
> the identities of covert agents

I'm pretty sure that's wrong. I clearly remember the Bush administration
restricting government scientists (and other employees) from talking to the
media, requiring all communications to be approved by political appointees in
their departments.

The scientists do have freedom of speech like other Americans, if that's what
you mean, but that freedom doesn't protect your job; you can be fired for what
you say, just not imprisoned or forced not to say it. It also doesn't protect
you if you disclose your employers secrets that are protected by NDAs and
similar agreements. For example (and speaking very generally), if a former
Apple employee revealed details of some secret Apple tech protected by NDA,
I'm almost certain the employee could be sued for damages.

------
yummyfajitas
This "muzzled scientists" story is a bit overblown. I'm also a muzzled
scientist - $LAWYER hired me to do some statistics on $FINANCE_THING and
search for $LAWBREAKING. One of the conditions of my employment is that
everything I did is legally privileged and I can't say anything beyond what is
contained in this post. I was a scientific adviser to $LAWYER, and my job was
strictly to help _him, his client, and only them_ understand things better.

In much the same way, certain scientists employed directly by political
agencies were held to some nondisclosure rules. I'm not sure I know why this
is a story - is there some moral principle that all scientists should disclose
everything and you can't hire them for confidential work?

~~~
colechristensen
> I was a scientific adviser to $LAWYER, and my job was strictly to help him,
> his client, and only them understand things better.

Looks more like you're wearing an accountant or auditor hat than a scientist
hat on this one.

>is there some moral principle that all scientists should disclose everything
and you can't hire them for confidential work?

Yes. The search for scientific truth shouldn't be a narrative for the people
who pay for it.

>I was a scientific adviser to $LAWYER, and my job was strictly to help him,
his client, and only them understand things better.

And when it comes down to it, the client and their representatives (you,
$LAWYER, etc) have or will have certain obligations to truth under the law;
you might be muzzled but it's more of a reassignment of responsibility to
somebody else.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Yes. The search for scientific truth shouldn 't be a narrative for the people
who pay for it._

So I guess you criticize every corporation who hires scientists to work on
proprietary products? Elon Musk is such a fiend!

Look, a much better way to accomplish this is robust intellectual freedom.
Rather than expecting _every individual scientist_ to be able to say anything
they want, regardless of employer, create a system where any scientist who
hasn't chosen to be muzzled can state controversial ideas and expect them to
be received with only intellectual criticism. You need far more than just
_legal_ protection, you also need a culture where dissenters are tolerated and
not socially shunned.

You also need a culture where replication and debunking are given equal
respect to finding novel results. The unfortunate fact is that if someone
publishes a new result, that gets vastly less prestige than if they replicate
(or fail to) an existing study, or spot statistical flaws in someone else's
work.

~~~
colechristensen
>So I guess you criticize every corporation who hires scientists to work on
proprietary products?

Those are engineers, not scientists. Even at that, the whole purpose of the
patent system is to publicize developments while protecting those who create
it for a short time.

~~~
yummyfajitas
You seem to be placing a lot of stock in the word "scientist" vs "engineer" or
"accountant". Could you explain the substantive distinction you are making?

For my part I don't see much of one. In all cases one attempts to learn true
facts about the world via careful analysis of data and experiment - the label
is just for potential employers.

------
tosseraccount
What employee can't speak freely?

