[Newsbot]

Title: Feds silence scientist over salmon study
Category: Political
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2011-07-26 15:21:38
Canadian

[Zipperfish]

Science gets in the way of the Conservatvies story.

[fifeboy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Science gets in the way of the Conservatvies story.

But no hidden agenda.

[sandorski]

This is the kind of shit I just don't understand about conservatives in general. When Reality disagrees with Ideology, Reality wins every single time.

Are people with their head in the sand really good Leaders?

[Neil Korchinski]

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for them.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Science gets in the way of the Conservatvies story.

Well, this begs the question as to where's the virus she's writing about? So I appreciate her hypothesis that it seems maybe a virus is causing salmon populations along the river to decline but that's not something you publish. That's something you put into a research grant.

It is not science. It is, correctly, the precursor to science.

As to why this would be suppressed it's because squeamish foreign countries (like the USA) who buy Canadian salmon from Canadian fishermen and Canadian packing plants will ban the imports of the fish. The economic impacts would be significant, especially to those in the salmon fishing industry.

Imagine for a moment that a Canadian scientist says "it looks like" Canadian cattle are infected with the kind of prions that cause Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease. The Canadian cattle industry would crash overnight. Prudence would be the word of the day.

I'm thinking study is indicated, but drawing conclusions is premature.

[Zipperfish]

The virus was not the hypothesis. It was in the discussion part of her conclusions.

Also, I would argue that, as a public scientist, Dr. Miller's reasearch belongs to the public and not to the Conservatvie party or the PMO.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The virus was not the hypothesis. It was in the discussion part of her conclusions.

Also, I would argue that, as a public scientist, Dr. Miller's reasearch belongs to the public and not to the Conservatvie party or the PMO.

As long as she's being funded by a private organization let her do whatever she wants. But if she answers to a government then she has to put up with taking orders or else she can stand on her principles and quit her job.

And sending up a flare on a leukemia virus in Canadian salmon is going to cause problems.

You watch.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

As long as she's being funded by a private organization let her do whatever she wants. But if she answers to a government then she has to put up with taking orders or else she can stand on her principles and quit her job.

And sending up a flare on a leukemia virus in Canadian salmon is going to cause problems.

You watch.

Actually, scientists at private organziations are muzzled all the time too. You are correct--if they are paying your salaries, they call the tune.

However, the government also has to take its orders--from the people. I don't think people are so impressed that important science is being muzzled by the Conservatvies. The decline in salmon is an important issue out here. As a taxpayer myself, who is paying the salary of both Dr. Miller and her political masters, I consider her work in the public service to be public domain.

[sandorski]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

As long as she's being funded by a private organization let her do whatever she wants. But if she answers to a government then she has to put up with taking orders or else she can stand on her principles and quit her job.

And sending up a flare on a leukemia virus in Canadian salmon is going to cause problems.

You watch.

Actually, scientists at private organziations are muzzled all the time too. You are correct--if they are paying your salaries, they call the tune.

However, the government also has to take its orders--from the people. I don't think people are so impressed that important science is being muzzled by the Conservatvies. The decline in salmon is an important issue out here. As a taxpayer myself, who is paying the salary of both Dr. Miller and her political masters, I consider her work in the public service to be public domain.

This. Government belongs to us, the People, not a Political Party or ideology. We just give Political parties the opportunity to run things for awhile, institute certain policies/programs, but not to obfuscate the Truth or coverup important Data that is key to addressing pressing issues.

[BartSimpson]

In this case I think your government is balancing the work of a scientist against the interests of the fishing industry.

Do recall that a similar American scientist devastated the apple industry of the Okanagan with what turned out to be unfounded concerns about alar.

So forgive me if I say that where you demanding access to a Canadian scientists research I'm thinking you'd want restraint if it were an American scientist threatening to publish a paper that would devastate the BC salmon industry.

[BeaverFever]

Fisheries protection is one thing, but if there is credible evidence of a virus, it needs to be addressed and that can't happen when there's a cover-up. And you shouldn't continue to pretend there's no problem (by selling possibly infected salmon) in the mean time.

But this goes beyond the issue of the salmon. The Harper gov't has put a tight leash on public communicaiton. The articel mentions all the red tape that now exists before anyone in the federal government speaks to the press and the unprecedented rule of having every single request approved by the Prime Ministers Office. The PM will only answer questions that are submitted to him and reviewed in advance, etc.

Only part of this is explained by conservative ideology I think. Sure, the right wing thinks that all media is "left-wing" (after all, journalism is an Arts major) and therefore is inherrently suspicious. Conservatives these days are also usually on unfriendly terms with their own non-political government employees, given that Conservatives usually campaign on a platform that all public employees are lazy, overpaid unionized, socialist subsersives.

But in fairness, until the past election, the Harper gov has been a minority gov that came to power after more than a decade of Liberal rule. When they first came to power, they knew they were on delicate ground, had to win over the broader public, etc and were rightfully afraid of any possible news story that could make them look bad, even if it was something that they had no control over. Image control was of utmost importance. It didn't help that in their first year, some of their backbench MPs made unfortnate anti-gay and anti-immigrant comments that played very badly in the press. So draconian controls were put in place, nobody who gets a paycheque from the Federal government can talk to any one who gets a paycheque from the media until the PMO itself has reviewed and approved each and every talking point. As I said, the conservatives' concern was not witout some good reason and certainly they are not the first government to muzzle public servants by any stretch. But they are the first to do so in such a proceduralized, consistent manner instead of ad-hoc basis as done in the past.

But it's been 5 years now and they have a majority so I think they can relax now. Like the addage about power corrupting, the problem with draconian controls is that they can take on a life of their own and can become part of the woodwork.

[BigKeithO]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

As a taxpayer myself, who is paying the salary of both Dr. Miller and her political masters, I consider her work in the public service to be public domain.

The Government can do whatever they like with government funded research. <i>You</i> (and I as well actually) can consider her work to be in the public domain however it is actually covered by "Crown Copyright" and "owned" by the Government. Stupid? Yes, but that is the truth of it.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Fisheries protection is one thing, but if there is credible evidence of a virus, it needs to be addressed and that can't happen when there's a cover-up.

That's where yuou and I agree. If there is credible evidence of a virus then yes, it needs to be addressed. But right now the suspicion of a virus is just that, a suspicion. It could also be naturally occuring toxins in the water (mercury, serpentine asbestos, etc.) and it could also be some sort of parasite.

In the Sierra Mountains in California around ten years ago a bunch of scientists identified populations of "mutant" frogs.

Here's an article from 2000 on the topic: http://www.americanscientist.org/booksh ... rmed-frogs

So what followed then was a bunch of apocalyptic hand wringing by the usual suspects demanding that all sorts of human activities be prohibited because the frogs were 'indicative' of something that was going to kill off humanity. The End is Near, don't you know?

But by 2009 the cause was known to be a parasite called 'anchor worm':
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/sci ... ecies.html

Interestingly, the issue about the parasite has been dropped because three successive cold winters have all but killed off the anchor worm and yellow legged frog populations have recovered. A benefit of the anchor worm epidemic is that invasive bullfrogs who posed a greater threat to native yellow legged frogs were all but eradicated by the anchor worms. Seems the native frogs have a higher resistance to the native anchor worm parasite than the invasisve species do.

Long story short, life experience tells me not to jump to conclusions with stuff like this.

Does it merit study? Absolutely. But do the hard science and then come back with an answer, don't just spit out a hypothesis and expect everyone to go along.

[Zipperfish]

Actually, I don't think this research is going to decimate the fishing industry one way or the other. The industry would probably be quite happy to find out that this was a virus, because that means it wasn't overfishing. Also, they could then start research in potential solutions which would mean more fish.

I don't think the issue here is the explosiveness of her findings. The issue is why would you not let her discuss her research with the media? The Cohen Inquiry is nothing but a joke. It's a public inquiry but there's so many lawyers working on it that witnesses are not allowed to talk to anyone about their testimony--even though that testimony was in a public hearing! You can't make this stuff up.