Well, here’s how the New York Times expressed it last September - Silencing Scientists. Not the sort of thing I like to see said about my country.
Thank you for the link.
I especially liked the article, because it was extremely short. I also liked the fact that it made assertions without a single quantitative noun.
How?
What scientists?
Such as…?
Which ones?
Any dates, details on these?
What policy?
That is an inexcusable piece of journalism. I’d have an easy time arguing it is actually closer to fiction, than it is to journalism.
Oh wait. I think I just did.
That certainly sounds bad - but it is short of specifics.
What exactly is being done to “restrict the flow of scientific information”? The implication is that scientists are precluded from talking to scientists; the only specific example of that is this:
This isn’t unusual for many large organizations - the firm I work for has a similar policy, designed to avoid corporate embarassment from “off the cuff” statements by senior employees made to the press. In that case at least, it isn’t an attempt to muzzle publication.
It could of course be the case that the Conservatives are using the policy in such a manner as to muzzle scientists altogether. At least, that’s what appears to be the implications.
Is the allegation that government scientists are, by virtue of the government’s policies, prohibited from conversing with other scientists, engaging in the scientific method, or publishing? If true, that would be bad. However, the article provides no details other than the “inquiries to the department officer” thing and unnamed “doing all it can”.
Will this Nature OpEd piece help? Frozen out | Nature
The public service exists to serve the public and the government of the day. It is critical that the work they do be available to everyone. Otherwise the public can’t determine based on evidence the best policy direction.
The Conservatives have done themselves no favours with climate change denial and the hint of creationism that runs through the party. Add in the long form census and these rumours of dumping historical data and you have fertile ground for people already wary to jump to the conclusion that it’s a intentional assault on public science and not what it likely is - unintentional bureaucratic responses to “cut costs”.
Yes, but that’s simply more detail concerning the point made in the first piece - that government scientists have to “vet” enquiries from journalists.
There’s a reasonable debate about whether such protocols are necessary or justified, and it is a good point that the US has better and more open protocols.
However, such procedures (for better or worse) are relatively common in business and government alike, and the allegation that having to funnel media inquiries through some sort of media relations office is, in and of itself, part of a ‘war on science’ is a bit of an exaggeration. Government scientists are scientists but they are also government employees, and it isn’t all that surprising that inquiries directed at them from journalists would be subject to some sort of government oversight - given that if the scientist screws up his or her answer to a reporter it is likely enough that an article could appear on the front page of the Globe saying “Government Scientist says [secrewed up answer]”, implying this is the government’s own position.
As for the allegation that the policies are confusing and byzantine - well, that’s also not very surprising, for the Canadian federal government. How many of their policies could that not be said of? 
But the OpEd presents the current Canadian practice as markedly different from before. It compares the shift in the US to the shift in Canada implying they’ve effectively changed positions.
Overall though I have no objections to public scientists prefacing statements with “Personally…”.
Neither do I - to my mind, that’s a good solution.
What I suspect is happening (I don’t of course know) is simply that Canada is 5-10 years behind the trend in the US, which isn’t exactly an uncommon situation for Canada to be in.
My suspicion is that Canada went from having no policies on the subject, and suffering problems with that, to instituting an ‘every enquiry must go to the media relations office’ policy. It is now encountering the problems with that.
The next stage is (hopefully) a relaxation of the policy to the current US stance - that is, a policy where scientists (and others) must simply state when they are speaking on their own behalf or when they are not.
The issue, though, is that simple institutional policies of this sort are being portrayed, without much in the way of proof, as evidence of a sinister conspiracy. Indeed, it isn’t even established that these policies originated with the elected political masters (though it would not surprise me) - Canada’s bureaucracy in many cases evolves policy on its own without input from above, and much continues without reference to who happens to be in power.
If this is the case, it may ironically be an example of the very thing that the policy in question was designed to guard against, writ large - the party in government being blamed for the acts of the bureaucrats (that is, instituting the policy), just as the policy was intended (ostensibly) to prevent the government as a whole from being blamed for statements of individual scientists or other employees. 
Polar bear at the Toronto Zoo taking its first steps. For your daily intake of cuteness…
Could my sleepy little town become the next international surfing mecca? It is a nice chance to get some tourist dollars but New Brunswick will screw it up somehow. We just don’t seem to be able to market ourselves very well. Hell, I live within 90 minutes of some fantastic national parks and still pop over to PEI or Nova Scotia for my vacations. I think there may be a New Years resolution in there somewhere…
That would be REALLY cool. I love New Brunswick.
Anyone who has swum in the Bay will tell you it’s cool, it’s really effin COOL! :eek:
It is certainly that! Unsteady, unsure, but managing. Great little guy!
It’s amazing how something so cute and innocent can’t grow up to trust humans. Apparently they don’t like us so much.
But cute, yeah!
Oh, they like us all right - omnomnom… 
It’s amazing to consider that something that starts out that helpless turns into the nine foot top predator we all know and love (and don’t want to see face to face).
For a little more on this subject, with refs, check out the list of things that this government is doing to sacrifice scientific research to the gods of the Almighty “Economy”.
Knowledge is power, ignorance is bliss.
Yay! Another freezing rain *event happening overnight tonight in the Ottawa valley.
[George Carlin]*Event! Shit, I hope I can get tickets to that![/GC] (Apologies if I’ve alrady used this one.)
We started the day with freezing rain but it switched to rain fairly quickly.
I took my daughter to a travelling exhibit of Little Ray’s Reptile Zoo’s Dinosaurs! Past and present! It was better than I thought it would be. The best part was the Canadian Raptor Conservacy show. A harris hawk actually brushed the top of my head as it flew past.
It was a little crazy this morning on the way to the rink, I saw a couple of crews out replacing a few light standards.
The main road are OK now but residential streets are solid ice now.
My son is supposed to be having his hockey team over tomorrow for a game in the backyard but I don’t think it’s gonna get cold enough to freeze the puddles on it now.
I often hear “Special Weather Statement” on The Weather Network - my response in my head is always, “Here’s my “special weather statement” - The weather is complete shit today!”
Hey Neil. I love you, man. But stick to making music, OK?