Monbiot - It's Time for Scientists to Go Rogue

Britain, Australia and Canada have been singled out in a Guardian op-ed for "crushing academic integrity on behalf of corporate power."

Guardian enviro-scribe, George Monbiot, contends that scientists have a duty to democracy to voice their dissent to government policy.

It's as clear and chilling a statement of intent as you're likely to read. Scientists should be "the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena". Vladimir Putin? Kim Jong-un? No, Professor Ian Boyd, chief scientific adviser at the UK's Department for Environment.

Boyd's doctrine is a neat distillation of government policy in Britain, Canada and Australia. These governments have suppressed or misrepresented inconvenient findings on climate change, pollution, pesticides, fisheries and wildlife. They have shut down programmes that produce unwelcome findings and sought to muzzle scientists. This is a modern version of Soviet Lysenkoism: crushing academic dissent on behalf of bad science and corporate power.

Writing in an online journal, Boyd argued that if scientists speak freely, they create conflict between themselves and policymakers, leading to a "chronically deep-seated mistrust of scientists that can undermine the delicate foundation upon which science builds relevance". This, in turn, "could set back the cause of science in government". So they should avoid "suggesting that policies are either right or wrong". If they must speak out, they should do so through "embedded advisers (such as myself), and by being the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena".

Shut up, speak through me, don't dissent – or your behaviour will ensure that science becomes irrelevant. Note that the conflicts between science and policy are caused by scientists, rather than by politicians ignoring or abusing the evidence. Or by chief scientific advisers.

...Boyd, in his efforts to establish a tinpot dictatorship, has not yet achieved the control enjoyed by his counterparts in Canada. There, scientists with government grants working on any issue that could affect industrial interests – tar sands, climate change, mining, sewage, salmon farms, water trading – are forbidden to speak freely to the public. They are shadowed by government minders and, when they must present their findings, given scripts to memorise and recite. Dozens of turbulent research programmes and institutes have either been cut to the bone or closed altogether.

There are some, supposed progressives, who argue that we should not despise Stephen Harper.   Why not?  Is it not natural to despise someone who so freely and egregiously tramples on our democracy, who writes such a dismal future for our young people and the generations to follow them?

Harper Gags EnviroCan Scientists to Keep Mum about Tar Sands Snowpack Contamination

Stephen Harper and his minions don't want you finding out that tar sands contaminants are accumulating in snow in the vicinity of the bitumen mines.

Harper and his Fossil Fueler bosses always fall back on the same tactic - what you don't know won't hurt them.   And to make damned sure you don't know about the tar sands snowpack contamination, Harper and his political commissars in the PMO have slapped the gags tightly on Environment Canada scientists, the people you pay for with your taxes.   You might pick up their salaries but they're not allowed to talk to you candidly about what they're discovering.   That's because Steve has insinuated himself between them and the taxpaying public, thereby neatly transforming them, against their will, into Steve's partisan political agency.

Environment Canada scientists have confirmed results published by researchers from the University of Alberta showing contaminants accumulating in the snow near oilsands operations, an internal federal document has revealed.

They also discovered contaminants in precipitation from testing in the region.

But the researchers were discouraged from speaking to reporters about their findings, first presented at a November 2011 conference in Boston of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, says the document, released to Postmedia News through access to information.

The original study, led by University of Alberta scientists Erin Kelly and David Schindler, analyzed winter snow and found that contamination levels were "highest near oilsands development compared to farther away," said the document released by the government.

The document, which was attached to an email indicating the information was also in the hands of the office of Environment Minister Peter Kent, provided a scripted list of answers that explained researchers had tested the toxicity of the Athabasca River water in the spring of 2010 with negative results, and also that no link was established between levels of contaminants found and any effect on fish.

The scripted answers also recommended that the federal scientists decline answering questions about the cost of a monitoring system or about Environment Canada's role and actions in the region.

If asked questions of this nature, the scientists were told in the script to say: "I am a scientist. I'm not in a position to answer that question but I'd be happy to refer you to an appropriate spokesperson."

Notice that sound?  That's a another part of your democratic freedoms being flushed down Steve Harper's toilet.