It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
The international science journal Nature is calling on Canada's Conservative government to "set its scientists free" and allow them to speak to the press in the interest of free-flowing scientific information.
...the journal says media interactions with government scientists in North America have changed over the past six years, as U.S. President Barack Obama's administration has promoted openness with the press for its scientists and ...Harper's government has gone the opposite way.
Harper's Humiliating Muzzle on Scientists
Canada is becoming a global joke as our world-class experts are prohibited from speaking.
Originally posted by charles1952
I assume (perhaps wrongly) that scientists get a lot of money from governments.
Isn't there a huge temptation then for the government to use the scientists for their own purposes?
2005: U.S. Still Silencing Scientists
More than 200 biologists and other researchers in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirm that they have been directed to alter their official scientific findings, says a survey released last week. The scientists say business interests apply political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions that might interfere with profits, including timber, grazing, development and energy companies. "The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," says Lexi Shultz of the Union of Concerned Scientists. According to critics, the Bush administration routinely alters science to suit political objectives.
Originally posted by charles1952
As so often happens in this field, I think it's really wrong, and I don't know how to make it right.
.....scientists can have agendas too.
But please, talk me out of it. I want to believe in the objectivity of science. Truly.
1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by mc_squared
And excellent little explanation just above. Thank you.
PrioNet Canada (2005-12)
To develop strategies to mitigate, and ultimately eradicate, prion diseases. The Network delivers sound scientific advice to help the Canadian government plan policies and regulations to manage the impact of prion diseases.
I just see a huge discrepancy in what we could know, and what we think we know.
Let's not make this about global warming.
...it certainly shouldn't overshadow other concerns either, but it's a big piece of the pie any way you slice it.
Besides - I've learned there's really no way to discuss this issue on ATS in an open, civil manner unless you tap into related threads that are already being discussed in a civil manner. Start any thread on its own about global warming and immediately out come the political idealogues who automatically blurt out false memes spoonfed to them by blatant political sources while they gripe away about how "politicized" the whole thing is...
....we don't even need to worry about the dialogue being muzzled. We are doing a perfectly fine job of censoring ourselves.