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.)
> 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.
> 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.
This isn't about seeking the contents of private conversations between scientists and politicians - this is about access to facts learned through tax-funded government research, and the "muzzling" of scientists in order to promote "message" over facts (and indeed, to promote falsehoods where facts are inconvenient).
this is about access to facts learned through tax-funded government research
It's rather more narrow than that. University professors were never muzzled, even if all of their research funding came via federal granting agencies.
The muzzling of scientists was limited to government scientists, i.e., those belonging to the federal civil service -- the ones whose jobs exist precisely for the purpose of giving advice to the government.
federal civil service -- the ones whose jobs exist precisely for the purpose of giving advice to the government
I'd say their jobs are giving advice to the public. Moreover the Harper party made it difficult for federal civil service scientists to communicate with journalists (aka the fourth estate of government) and the Greens, NDP, Liberals i.e. any other part of the government not in power. The Harper party overreach has no justification in a democratic society and you shouldn't be making excuses for them.
I know the difference which is why I specified not in power. The Greens, NDP, Liberals had elected members in the Canadian system of governance. If you want to be pedantic and argue that government in a parliamentary system refers to the party with the most seats in parliament and in control of the executive branch then go ahead. I find that pointless as you're ignoring the main thrust of my argument.
If you want to be pedantic and argue that government in a parliamentary system refers to the party with the most seats in parliament
Not even that. Canada currently has 338 MPs, 184 of whom are members of the Liberal Party; but only 31 of them -- the Prime Minister and 30 other Ministers -- are part of the government.
> the ones whose jobs exist precisely for the purpose of giving advice to the government.
That's sort of an odd way to frame it--it makes it sound like these people are only hired to interpret scientific literature for their superiors, or to conduct standard lab tests. On the contrary, many of these scientists conduct basic scientific research. There's no "advisory" value to that work--it is not intended for immediate policy decisions, but rather for the long-term advancement of scientific knowledge.
Basic scientific research is a collective effort, and the only possible outcome you could expect when preventing scientists from sharing their research with the greater scientific community is the prevention of scientific progress. Assuming rational actors, I cannot fathom another motive.
Only in a despotism is the government strictly equivalent to its individual leaders. Harper was engaging in censorship of the public trust so he could secure private electoral victories, but it was never his government to censor.
Of course, there's plenty of time for Trudeau to get this wrong as well; he has his electoral blind spots as well.
Under the Canadian constitution, the government is the Queen, advised by her Ministers, supported by the civil service.
The government is limited in its powers by Parliament and the judiciary -- the government cannot enact new laws or appropriate funds without Parliamentary approval -- but the government is nonetheless controlled by a small number of people.
... and even that "muzzling" was limited to the capacity in which those scientists were to talk to mass media. They could and did publish any academic papers / attend conferences / etc. They just couldn't speak seemingly on behalf of the government.
It's being downvoted because the campaign platform of the new government specifical states that scientists can speak freely.
Now that scientists have been publicly told that they can speak freely, what's to stop them? If you suggest that the new government will somehow be muzzling them from the shadows, and you can explain the mechanism of how this might happen, I am all ears.
The popular narrative is that what the Harper government did was unusual and unacceptable. People who believe that most Canadian governments (of whatever ideology) will not stoop to willful blindness, probably view the the attitude expressed as uncharitably cynical.
Canada and Australia are actually in similar situations i.e. the removal of a right-wing, polarising leader. When this happens everything is seen as a glimpse into what the new political narrative is.
In both countries we are seeing the policies only change marginally but a strong signal being sent about the respect and commitment to science.
> 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.
It says that they don't feel like their policies and votes are threatened by the truth. That sounds like a "principle" to me.
I'm Canadian. I have scientist friends. I can say this was not overblown. Funding was cut. Programs that were decades old were shut down. Data that contradicted the government was buried.
Edit: "It’s the first time in nearly a decade I’ve been able to speak with a Canadian government scientist directly, on the telephone, without spending days or weeks clearing the request through a media officer and submitting a list of questions for editing and approval."
I realize the ramifications were probably bad, but I'm surprised at least one or two didn't ignore or actively disobey their government overlords... Or did they and I just didn't hear about it?
To what end? To alert everyone that there is a serious vial infection running amok in the pacific salmon? You've lost your job, and any way of helping with the problems (and this isn't software development, there are probably 3-4 positions available outside government in the county if you want to keep doing the same line of work), all so it gets buried because most people don't care about pacific salmon populations?
These people are not whistleblowers, they are not going to reveal anything you don't already know. Their value for journalists is in using them as confirmation / official data points. If they cannot speak in that role, there is little point in looking them up.
Let's be honest this day isn't going to come or if it does no one is going to care.
The only scientific issue that has such a strong political element is climate change. And given that the new government in Canada is left wing and pro environment I can't imagine their being much (if any) dissension. This was the primary reason the scientists were muzzled after all. All the other scientific issues from the lay person/media perspective simply aren't that interesting.
The only real attacks on science that get coverage are the ones attacking environmentalism or pre-human evolution. But science does (or at least should) influence politics in a lot more places.
I would go further and say that any scientific topic which has any controversy is "political" by definition. Furthermore, the political dogmas that are held by laypeople almost universally depend on empirical or scientific facts which have not been established or have the imminent potential to be overturned. Political bias has an effect on what research gets funded and/or published, the size of which is correlated to the "softness" of the discipline.
> The only scientific issue that has such a strong political element is climate change.
Economic policy is hotly debated in both economic science and government. Same to immigration policy. Even statistics has it's controversial bits. Anthropologists also periodically produce some controversial nuggets. Also, let's not forget that many scientists won't hesitate to give their opinion on whatever is asked of them!
Economics is a social science. The idea that science must be performed in a lab is fundamentally wrong. That said, economists do have labs where they conduct data analysis, often with the assistance of large computing resources.
Unlikely. The last ten years were a significant departure from Canadian norms. It seems reasonable to assume we're returning to those norms, based on what we've heard so far.
