David Schindler tells it like it is in the TO Star: Government is Muzzling Scientific Thought/speech

The following smacks of fascist and totalitarianism. No problem, just 

watch hockey and have a Timmy's.

 

 



image from National Geographic Documentary 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xybxxr_national-geographic-inside-undercover-in-north-korea_news 
 

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/09/20/remove_the_muzzle_from_government_scientists.html
 
Remove the muzzle from government scientists
Politicians are twisting and hiding science that reveals flaws in their 
policies.
 
By: David Schindler Published on Fri Sep 20 2013
 
Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS
Demonstrators on Parliament Hill protest research cuts and the 
government's muzzling of Canadian scientists. (Sept. 16, 2013)
 
Most scientists are by nature introverts, happiest in the field or the 
laboratory, willing to talk about their work if asked but not inclined 
to be self-promoters. But on Monday, they demonstrated in public in 
several Canadian cities to protest the muzzling of government scientists 
and the de-emphasis of government environmental science.
 
That scientists would take the time and effort to demonstrate publicly 
should be deeply disturbing to Canadians. It indicates some dramatic and 
important changes in the purpose of government science departments.
 
In the 1960s and 1970s, government scientists were encouraged to speak 
publicly about their work. The resulting science-based policies were the 
envy of scientists and policy-makers around the world. Canada was the 
first country to regulate phosphorus in sewage and detergents, leading 
to the recovery of many lakes from algal blooms. Much of the science 
behind that decision was done by government scientists. It was welcomed 
by policy-makers eager to anchor their policies in solid science. Canada 
also led global efforts to decrease emissions of ozone-depleting 
chemicals, resulting in the Montreal Protocol.
 
A decade later, the transparency in government science began showing the 
first signs of weakening. Scientists were no longer encouraged to speak 
publicly on their work, but they were not prevented from doing so. They 
were warned to avoid directly criticizing government policies, even 
environmentally harmful ones. Rebukes were mild for a scientist who 
challenged his political masters. At worst, a scolding letter was “put 
on your file.”
 
Such tightening of public communication was one reason I left government 
science for academia. In ensuing years, control over science and 
scientists has been slowly tightened by politicians and bureaucrats 
under both Conservative and Liberal governments, who feared that science 
would challenge their ideology and their policies.
 
Even so, there were successes, such as policies to control acid rain, 
based largely on science from government departments. But there were 
also failures, as bureaucrats and politicians ignored science and 
silenced government scientists to make weak policies that collapsed the 
cod fishery and compromised the salmon runs of the Nechako River. 
Despite repeated budget cuts, government science staggered on, doing 
sometimes remarkable work, using clever liaisons with scientists in 
universities and other countries to make important work publicly known. 
During this period, I gave many lectures warning that government science 
was on a dangerous path. No one seemed to notice.
 
It remained for the Harper Government to deliver the coup de grâce to 
government science. Shortly after it took office, scientists were told 
they must have permission from bureaucrats to speak publicly. 
Bureaucrats and communications officers issued “speaking lines” that 
must be used to avoid criticism of policies. The permitted lines were 
often so inane that most scientists chose to remain silent rather be 
embarrassed by using them.
 
Often, obtaining permission took so long that the opportunity to speak 
had passed. On issues of particular international sensitivity such as 
greenhouse gases, scientists were accompanied to public meetings by 
communications “handlers” to ensure that they did not utter any words 
that would embarrass policy-makers. Scientists were advised to avoid the 
media if possible, using tactics copied from training in bear avoidance 
“walk slowly away, maintaining eye contact.” Similar tactics were used 
by the Soviet Union to suppress scientific communication during the Cold 
War, when KGB agents shadowed scientists participating in international 
meetings.
 
Other actions were taken to ensure there would be less pesky science 
done by government departments to challenge the Conservatives’ 
pro-development agenda. The government divested itself of the 
Experimental Lakes Project, government contaminants programs, climate 
projects and the Arctic PEARL project. The Fisheries Act and the 
Navigable Waters Act were changed to provide less protection, while 
expediting large industrial developments.
 
The Canadian public is beginning to see the problem, as scientifically 
misleading and downright fallacious statements are made by ministers on 
issues from greenhouse gas emissions to oilsands and protection of 
fisheries. Most people are aware that a functioning democracy depends on 
an informed electorate. Most also know that we, the taxpayers, pay the 
bills for government science and endure the consequences of the 
environmental policies, whether they are grounded in good science or 
not. We deserve to know what we are paying for.
 
We must take government science back from politicians who would twist or 
hide science that reveals flaws in their policies. We deserve to know 
the truth about the impacts of proposed developments on our environment, 
in order to avoid mistakes that will be costly to future generations.
 
Government science once provided this information, and it must be 
changed to do so again. The health of not only our environment, but of 
Canadian democracy, depends on it.
 
 
David Schindler is Killam Memorial Professor of Ecology emeritus at the 
University of Alberta. His 50-year scientific career has included 22 
years as a federal government scientist.
 

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/09/20/remove_the_muzzle_from_government_scientists.html
 
Remove the muzzle from government scientists
Politicians are twisting and hiding science that reveals flaws in their 
policies.
 
By: David Schindler Published on Fri Sep 20 2013
 
Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS
Demonstrators on Parliament Hill protest research cuts and the 
government's muzzling of Canadian scientists. (Sept. 16, 2013)
 
Most scientists are by nature introverts, happiest in the field or the 
laboratory, willing to talk about their work if asked but not inclined 
to be self-promoters. But on Monday, they demonstrated in public in 
several Canadian cities to protest the muzzling of government scientists 
and the de-emphasis of government environmental science.
 
That scientists would take the time and effort to demonstrate publicly 
should be deeply disturbing to Canadians. It indicates some dramatic and 
important changes in the purpose of government science departments.
 
In the 1960s and 1970s, government scientists were encouraged to speak 
publicly about their work. The resulting science-based policies were the 
envy of scientists and policy-makers around the world. Canada was the 
first country to regulate phosphorus in sewage and detergents, leading 
to the recovery of many lakes from algal blooms. Much of the science 
behind that decision was done by government scientists. It was welcomed 
by policy-makers eager to anchor their policies in solid science. Canada 
also led global efforts to decrease emissions of ozone-depleting 
chemicals, resulting in the Montreal Protocol.
 
A decade later, the transparency in government science began showing the 
first signs of weakening. Scientists were no longer encouraged to speak 
publicly on their work, but they were not prevented from doing so. They 
were warned to avoid directly criticizing government policies, even 
environmentally harmful ones. Rebukes were mild for a scientist who 
challenged his political masters. At worst, a scolding letter was “put 
on your file.”
 
Such tightening of public communication was one reason I left government 
science for academia. In ensuing years, control over science and 
scientists has been slowly tightened by politicians and bureaucrats 
under both Conservative and Liberal governments, who feared that science 
would challenge their ideology and their policies.
 
Even so, there were successes, such as policies to control acid rain, 
based largely on science from government departments. But there were 
also failures, as bureaucrats and politicians ignored science and 
silenced government scientists to make weak policies that collapsed the 
cod fishery and compromised the salmon runs of the Nechako River. 
Despite repeated budget cuts, government science staggered on, doing 
sometimes remarkable work, using clever liaisons with scientists in 
universities and other countries to make important work publicly known. 
During this period, I gave many lectures warning that government science 
was on a dangerous path. No one seemed to notice.
 
It remained for the Harper Government to deliver the coup de grâce to 
government science. Shortly after it took office, scientists were told 
they must have permission from bureaucrats to speak publicly. 
Bureaucrats and communications officers issued “speaking lines” that 
must be used to avoid criticism of policies. The permitted lines were 
often so inane that most scientists chose to remain silent rather be 
embarrassed by using them.
 
Often, obtaining permission took so long that the opportunity to speak 
had passed. On issues of particular international sensitivity such as 
greenhouse gases, scientists were accompanied to public meetings by 
communications “handlers” to ensure that they did not utter any words 
that would embarrass policy-makers. Scientists were advised to avoid the 
media if possible, using tactics copied from training in bear avoidance 
“walk slowly away, maintaining eye contact.” Similar tactics were used 
by the Soviet Union to suppress scientific communication during the Cold 
War, when KGB agents shadowed scientists participating in international 
meetings.
 
Other actions were taken to ensure there would be less pesky science 
done by government departments to challenge the Conservatives’ 
pro-development agenda. The government divested itself of the 
Experimental Lakes Project, government contaminants programs, climate 
projects and the Arctic PEARL project. The Fisheries Act and the 
Navigable Waters Act were changed to provide less protection, while 
expediting large industrial developments.
 
The Canadian public is beginning to see the problem, as scientifically 
misleading and downright fallacious statements are made by ministers on 
issues from greenhouse gas emissions to oilsands and protection of 
fisheries. Most people are aware that a functioning democracy depends on 
an informed electorate. Most also know that we, the taxpayers, pay the 
bills for government science and endure the consequences of the 
environmental policies, whether they are grounded in good science or 
not. We deserve to know what we are paying for.
 
We must take government science back from politicians who would twist or 
hide science that reveals flaws in their policies. We deserve to know 
the truth about the impacts of proposed developments on our environment, 
in order to avoid mistakes that will be costly to future generations.
 
Government science once provided this information, and it must be 
changed to do so again. The health of not only our environment, but of 
Canadian democracy, depends on it.
 
 
David Schindler is Killam Memorial Professor of Ecology emeritus at the 
University of Alberta. His 50-year scientific career has included 22 
years as a federal government scientist.