What role should politics play in science? In North America many scientists are employed by the state as researchers. These scientists have competing obligations to the state, their fellow citizens and the scientific community because of their roles as public servants, citizens and scientists. Over the past month there has been an increasing dialogue about these competing obligations of Canadian scientists employed by the federal government.
The story begins in February 2010 when Nature accepted a May 2009 submission that was authored by Julian Morton, Mark Bateman, Scott Dallimore, James Teller and Zhirong Yang. The paper fills a gap in the previous research surrounding the flooding from Lake Agassiz to the Arctic Ocean and the sudden onset of the Younger Dryas (an abrupt climate change that temporarily returned an ice age in the midst of glacial melt). Teller’s inclusion on the author list appears to be because of his role kick-starting this line of research, but if it weren’t for the inclusion of Scott Dallimore there might not be a story to tell.1
Scientist Scott Dallimore
Dallimore is an employee of the Western Canadian Branch of Geological Survey, which is part of Natural Resources Canada. Naturally, when the Canadian media wanted to add pithy quotes to their promotional articles on the story they turned to Dallimore in March.
Interestingly, he is not quoted in either article produced by CanWest News Service about flooding research. Randy Boswell wrote an article about Dutch research that demonstrated that the amount of water released was double what was previously thought. Boswell reported the scientific community’s preferred interpretation of the flooding event as linked to the rise of agricultural activity in Europe and sudden climate change, and therefore as relevant to modern concerns over glacial melt. Boswell also unsuccessfully attempted to get Teller to compare the event to Noah’s Flood.2
Science Writer Margaret Munro
A few weeks later Margaret Munro reported on the Nature article and she included quotations from Teller and Murton.3 Munro’s story is similar to the promotional piece produced by Nature itself.4 That the third author, Dallimore, was not interviewed was not overly surprising at the time, but after months of research Munro revisited the story to explain Dallimore’s exclusion.
It turns out that Dallimore was willing to talk, but he wasn’t given clearance by his Minister’s office (Christian Paradis) until after Munro’s deadlines had passed. Munro used requests through Access to Information and Privacy to obtain the email threads within the department that dealt with her previous request for an interview. Munro’s muckraking revealed a sudden onset of political interest and interference that took scientists and media officers within the federal government by surprise.5
Other media outlets picked up the story and added their own layers of interpretation and anecdotes. John Geddes of Maclean’s shared his difficulty getting information from Environment Canada scientists.6 Bruce Cheadle of the Canadian Press added further soundbites and layering to the story.7
Minister of Natural Resources Christian Paradis
Moreover, this isn’t the first time that Paradis has been accused of delaying or distorting the information emanating from his office. In February one of Paradis’ political staffers, Sébastien Togneri, was caught attempting to recall a document already scheduled for release.8 Two months later the interim Access to Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault, issued a report, in an effort to ensure that a permanent Commissioner was appointed, drumming up fear that Access to Information was in danger of diminishing or disappearing.9 In response to Togneri’s first and only appearance before a Commons Committee into his actions, the government decided that political staffers would no longer be responsible to parliament, but instead that they would be responsible to their minister who would be accountable to the House of Commons for the actions of his or her staffers; it’s a stance the government has maintained throughout the summer.10 When parliament resumed in September, the government was still being asked by the opposition to fully disclose the relevant files on the Afghan detainee investigation, the census debate and Togneri’s actions.11
All of which has led to several stories that broke last week on the topic of Access to Information. The CBC’s Emily Chung focuses on the press officers and science writers who are impacted by the new government imperatives.12 The breaking news Thursday morning and into the afternoon was that Togneri had been implicated in three other instances of tampering with Access to Information requests, even though he told the Commons Committee that he had only done it once; he resigned promptly.13 On Friday it was revealed that Legault, who was already investigating Togneri, was deciding the scope and extent of her continuing investigation of the matter.14 Unsurprisingly, the opposition spent Friday and the weekend calling for Paradis to live up to the government’s previous claims that Ministers would be accountable for the actions of their political staffers; so far he has refused to resign.15
The episode raises several questions.
- Is the original Munro/Dallimore episode (and the ensuing months long wait for Access to Information) merely a case of tight deadlines and understaffing?
- If so, should the government hire more information and communication officers to expedite the vetting process for media and Access to Information requests?
- How would this story be different if Dallimore’s research was classified rather than openly published in Nature?
- Is the control of scientific information by politicians and their staffers new? Troubling? Illegal? Part of an overall policy towards control of information?
- Should Paradis resign or is he the centre of a witch hunt?
- Given that all the examples cited in the articles involve climate change, what is the message the Canadian government wants to promote?16
- More broadly, what role should science play in politics and politics play in science?
- Is it even possible to separate science and politics?
- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/nature08954.html ↩
- http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/World+altering+collapse+ancient+Canadian+twice+massive+thought/2667438/story.html ↩
- http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/rivers-reveal-lake-agassizs-ancient-clues-89669632.html ↩
- http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464657a.html ↩
- http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Media+rules+muzzling+federal+scientists/3513960/story.html ↩
- http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/13/federal-scientists-should-be-allowed-to-speak-up/ ↩
- http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/863468–federal-scientists-free-to-speak-once-ottawa-tells-them-what-they-can-say ↩
- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/is-this-the-answer-to-access-requests-stop-keeping-records/article1480151/ ↩
- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/access-to-information-risks-being-obliterated-report/article1533366/ and http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/in-ottawa-secrecy-is-the-issue-that-keeps-on-giving/article1534755/ ↩
- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-shield-staffers-from-hostile-committees-and-tyrannical-chairmen/article1580017/ and http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/john-baird-thumbs-nose-at-request-for-public-works-emails/article1688159/ ↩
- http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/dreary-antics-of-parliament-expected-to-be-interrupted-by-rare-moment-of-drama-103239689.html ↩
- http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/09/29/federal-scientists-media-government.html?ref=rss ↩
- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ministers-aide-meddled-repeatedly-in-access-to-information-requests/article1735970/?cmpid=rss1 and http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/30/paradis-access-information.html?ref=rss ↩
- http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/869058–government-asks-info-commissioner-to-look-at-access-interference-case ↩
- http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Opposition+call+Paradis+resignation/3609102/story.html, http://www.nationalpost.com/Opposition+call+Paradis+resign+over+aide+gaffe/3610044/story.html, http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/01/what-of-ministerial-accountability/ and http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-demand-wider-probe-on-access-to-information-meddling/article1740314/?cmpid=rss1 ↩
- See my previous post on the new Arctic Research Station devoted to climate change research. ↩
This is a really interesting case, thanks Jon. I find the entire distinction between the state and its citizens worrying. I can't imagine what an argument trying to justify Natural Resources Canada keeping any secrets from Canadian citizens would even look like. Where's the national security risk...
This is a really interesting case, thanks Jon.
I find the entire distinction between the state and its citizens worrying. I can’t imagine what an argument trying to justify Natural Resources Canada keeping any secrets from Canadian citizens would even look like. Where’s the national security risk?
It seems legitimate for our elected representatives to direct the research priorities of public scientists, but entirely illegitimate to have any power to affect the dissemination of the results of that research, other than to insist that the results are actually disseminated.
When it's a comedian who coins a potent and accurate phrase it tends to lose something, but when Stephen Colbert (or his writers) came up with the line, "reality has a well-known liberal bias," they were on to something. A government has the power, and I'll go as far as to say the right, to decid...
When it’s a comedian who coins a potent and accurate phrase it tends to lose something, but when Stephen Colbert (or his writers) came up with the line, “reality has a well-known liberal bias,” they were on to something.
A government has the power, and I’ll go as far as to say the right, to decide funding priorities. But that’s where the relationship ends. There should be no interference. There should be no vetting. There should be no need to seek or give permission to speak to the media in any form, be it radio, TV, or print media in all its forms; including academic journals.
The very idea that a scientist would be required to get permission to talk to a scientific publication speaks volumes about the current state of our nation and the Stalinist-like control they seem to want to exercise over information.
There are many attempts to explain the Harper government’s iron fisted hold on information, but to me, in the end, it comes back to Stephen Colbert. When your views, policies and beliefs are all conflicting or disproven by science, rational thought/inquiry and ‘the facts’, then you’d probably want to control these scientific tidbits that demonstrate you’re incompetent.
Let me play Devil's Advocate here in response to Mike and Luke (since none of the Paradis supporters have turned up to defend him). The most charitable interpretation of why Paradis and his staff delayed Dallimore's ability to speak to the media is that they wanted to be briefed about the work th...
Let me play Devil’s Advocate here in response to Mike and Luke (since none of the Paradis supporters have turned up to defend him).
The most charitable interpretation of why Paradis and his staff delayed Dallimore’s ability to speak to the media is that they wanted to be briefed about the work that was happening in their department and wanted to be able to participate in the media promotion. Optimisitically, this desire to participate was to boost morale in the department by praising the work of their scientists, but pessimistically it was probably for a chance to bask in the political and media attention. Realistically, it was probably a combination. It’s not unusual for media deadlines to conflict with the workload priorities of the government; what is rare is the media making a story out of it.
That Paradis’ staffers (Togneri and now two additional staffers who have been implicated) have been accused of interference in Access to Information requests is completely unrelated, and is being spun by the media and my post to make it look like there is a long line of guilt. There’s no pattern here, just a series of unrelated events that have riled up the opposition parties and a sympathetic media. That I mentioned the clearly unrelated Census debate and Afghan detainee issue is further evidence of this attempt to bias my readers.
That’s the best I can do as a Devil’s Advocate.
Luke, Paradis and staff don’t appear to have prevented Dallimore from submitting to Nature, just his availability for an interview with a science writer from the Canadian media. I haven’t heard anything indicating that scientists are being informed not to publish their results (except where secrecy necessitates it, and I haven’t heard anything about secrecy being expanded).
Regarding Mike’s question about national security and secrecy. Historians have a theory about the British 30-year sunset rule that we used to apply in Canada: it’s there to make sure that anyone who might be embarassed by the documents will have long since retired or died, at which point everything can be disclosed.
Our new Access to Information operates differently. Secrecy is rarely invoked to protect Canada’s national security. Most documents that are withheld through Access to Information and Privacy are blocked because of privacy concerns (they list biographical information, and it’s up to the requestor to prove that the person in question consents to their information being released or that they are deceased) or, and this is especially true for Foreign Affairs and Defence, the documents include foreign-generated information. In other words, it’s not our national security that we usually protect, it’s American (and sometimes British, New Zealand and Australian).
Historians have long been aware that our allies are less restrictive about mutually protecting our information and visits to foreign archives can be extremely fruitful for research about Canada. In England, for instance, pretty much everything over 30 years old is open, regardless of where the document originated. In Canada, a 50 year old classified document would still be protected if it was generated in England, and one would have to prove that the Brits have declassified it in order to gain access … much easier to just go read it in England.
So if there is an NRCan project that relies on classified information from another country, it can’t be published until the other country declassifies the information. I don’t actually have any clue how likely this scenario is for NRCan projects, but the Americans sometimes protect the strangest bits of information (in order to ensure proprietary and patent rights), so it’s not out of the realm of possibility.
The most charitable interpretation is still pretty damning. If a university academic publishes a paper, and the media request to interview that academic in relation to that paper, does the academic need to ask his or her university's permission to do so? As far as I know they don't. Universities are...
The most charitable interpretation is still pretty damning. If a university academic publishes a paper, and the media request to interview that academic in relation to that paper, does the academic need to ask his or her university’s permission to do so? As far as I know they don’t. Universities are quite interested in self-promotion and morale. They don’t seem to muzzle their academics as part of that mission. If they were attempting to participate in the media attention for their own gain, well, they missed the boat didn’t they? Perhaps the office should have been more aware of its scientists’ publications. Preventing a scientist from speaking to the media in order to gain political notoriety is no more a valid reason than for purposes of spin.
I'd like to, if possible, try and separate the issues of the apparent abuses of Access to Information requests by Paradis and the requirement that Dallimore (and presumably any other Canadian researcher employed by the government) obtain clearance before speaking to the media. Paradis' actions ar...
I’d like to, if possible, try and separate the issues of the apparent abuses of Access to Information requests by Paradis and the requirement that Dallimore (and presumably any other Canadian researcher employed by the government) obtain clearance before speaking to the media.
Paradis’ actions are at best problematic, and certainly actionable. I don’t have anything to contribute to that aspect of this issue. I can understand the cry and hue over this, but think the complaints over preventing Dallimore from speaking in a timely fashion a bit overblown.
However, the need for government employees (which Dallimore is) to get clearance before speaking to the media is a reasonable request easily taken to extremes. The government is interested in presenting a consistent message to the public with respect to its policies. Dallimore’s statements could be interpreted as representing government policy, and the government would rather manage any conflicts beforehand. In this instance they managed them badly. I have a hard time seeing how what Dallimore could have said in connection with the flooding research would have embarrassed the government more than the fiddling with Access to Information requests should have.
Now, this is different from the editing of reports and publications from scientists, which in my mind is a more significant problem. From what I can tell, the government did not interfere in the publication of the research in Nature, nor put words in Dallimore’s mouth. And really, if the research is allowed to be published, and the taxpayers can access the research, it’s not being kept from them.
Excellent points David. At this early hour I can't think of any questions to flesh out your ideas more. Mike, part of what David says should explain why your comparison of government to academia is off track. The government operates as a combination of university and industry. One wouldn't expect...
Excellent points David. At this early hour I can’t think of any questions to flesh out your ideas more.
Mike, part of what David says should explain why your comparison of government to academia is off track. The government operates as a combination of university and industry. One wouldn’t expect industrial scientists to be allowed to speak off the cuff without company permission. Any employee of the federal government relinquishes all patent rights to the Crown, for instance, and all work done on “company” time is property of the Crown. (They get handsome benefit packages, stable work that doesn’t rely on grants and they are working for the national good, so it all balances out.)
What has changed over the past several decades is an ebb and flow of various governments trusting civil servants to speak off the cuff. This trend generally mirrors the personality traits of either the Minister of the department or the Prime Minister. Harper wants a unified message, his Ministers don’t disagree, and all civil servants have to abide by this.
The reason that the government is not just a clone of industry stems from the early Cold War. University-trained scientists fought to secure the right to openly publish anything that is not classified so that their CVs would remain competitive with university-based scientists; they had the support of a pair of powerful Deputy Ministers and some highly sympathetic Ministers and a pair of non-involved Prime Ministers. In the same period universities pushed back against some of the strict controls on grants. It used to be that all equipment purchased on government grant remained property of the Crown (although it was normally sold to the university at the completion of the grant for a nominal $1); some of the “we gave you money, you are responsible to us” attitude is still attached to grants.
Well this just goes back to my original comment that the distinction between the state and its citizens is very troubling. Regardless of the history, I cannot see any legitimate distinction between the interest of the state and the interest of its citizens. When a private company hires a scientist, ...
Well this just goes back to my original comment that the distinction between the state and its citizens is very troubling. Regardless of the history, I cannot see any legitimate distinction between the interest of the state and the interest of its citizens. When a private company hires a scientist, it makes sense for that company to control the scientists’ communication with the public, as the interests of the company are not necessarily aligned with those of the public. Similarly, if the Conservative Party of Canada hires a scientist for some reason, it makes perfect sense for them to control what that scientist says to the public. But when the government hires a scientist I can see no legitimate reason for them to control what the scientist says to the public, because the scientist is supposed to be working for the public, and the minister is supposed to be working for the public. Nobody works for “the crown” in any real sense anymore. It is completely illegitimate for a minister to exercise message control on a government scientist, except in very exceptional circumstances like national security. Christian Paradis doesn’t pay Scott Dallimore, we do.
Mike, the separation is a feature of representative democracy, or at least it's a feature of how this representative democracy has developed. I won't deny that what you point out is one of the many mechanisms of this system of government that appear undemocratic, but I'm not sure what alternative y...
Mike,
the separation is a feature of representative democracy, or at least it’s a feature of how this representative democracy has developed. I won’t deny that what you point out is one of the many mechanisms of this system of government that appear undemocratic, but I’m not sure what alternative you can suggest that isn’t going to have worse problems or simply different manifestations of the same problem. I also can’t think of a political party in this country that would be in favour of relinquishing this power (most of them would complain about it in opposition, but none would do anything when in power).
But Mike, a plurality of Canadian citizens supported the Conservative Party in the general election, giving that party the power to appoint ministers and conduct policy in a way they see fit that doesn't violate the law. In a sense, the election determined that the country would pursue policies con...
But Mike, a plurality of Canadian citizens supported the Conservative Party in the general election, giving that party the power to appoint ministers and conduct policy in a way they see fit that doesn’t violate the law. In a sense, the election determined that the country would pursue policies consistent with the preferences of the Conservative Party, assuming they followed through the established processes (set regulations, pass laws, etc.) of the Canadian Government.
Both the Canadian and American political systems are representative, not direct, democracies. And even if the citizenry had direct control over the actions of government employees, it’s not necessarily a given that a majority (or plurality, befitting the current government) would agree with your perspective.
So because of the election Paradis can establish (or simply enforce, depending on how you interpret policy) policies controlling how the government employees under his portfolio relate to the media, provided it doesn’t break the law. Interference with legitimate Access to Information requests is therefore actionable.
It happens south of the border, too, independent of political party, as this Nature story indicates.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101013/full/467768a.html
If you don’t have a subscription, this blog post hits the important points:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/10/bush-obama-war-on-science-continues.html
In both cases there’s been no apparent interference with the publication of the research.
There is interference with communication between scientists and the public. How can this be in the public's interest, regardless of whether the public supports the Conservative Party's policies? The standard of conduct for elected officials can't be merely not breaking the law. How can you see a sce...
There is interference with communication between scientists and the public. How can this be in the public’s interest, regardless of whether the public supports the Conservative Party’s policies? The standard of conduct for elected officials can’t be merely not breaking the law. How can you see a scenario where the public interest is best served by preventing a scientist from communicating with the media? How is the public best served by forcing all government scientists to be “on message”?
Mike, you've embraced an admirably democratic stance, but meeting your requirements for elements of direct democracy within a representative democracy would require some significant realignments of the existing system, or a drastic culture shift amongst politicians. I'm not even remotely optimis...
Mike,
you’ve embraced an admirably democratic stance, but meeting your requirements for elements of direct democracy within a representative democracy would require some significant realignments of the existing system, or a drastic culture shift amongst politicians.
I’m not even remotely optimistic that either is going to happen anytime soon.
Politicians and the media have well-known interests that are often at odds with what is best for the public. Politicians need to be reelected (to a cabinet position in the governing party, so that they can spend in their constituency), and the media have to sell their stories. Citizens are the means to an end for both groups (insert your favourite non-Kantian exploitation terminology, if you prefer).
Blocking Access to Information requests will probably be found to be illegal. Delaying approval for a scientist’s comments to the media was inconsiderate and predictably resulted in some negative press. The latter is a change in management personnel and philosophy, and employees don’t always react well to change. This is why Munro was put onto her follow-up story.
If a new party governs after the next election, we’ll see a new range of complaints about the spectrum of use/abuse of power.
Yeah I agree - politicians aren't selfless. And it's not very realistic to expect that politicians will only "campaign" on their own time and will never use their positions as a means to increase their chances in the next election. So the line of appropriateness is always going to be fuzzy. Never...
Yeah I agree – politicians aren’t selfless. And it’s not very realistic to expect that politicians will only “campaign” on their own time and will never use their positions as a means to increase their chances in the next election. So the line of appropriateness is always going to be fuzzy.
Nevertheless, I don’t think I’m making any confusion between representative and direct democracy. I’m not suggesting that Natural Resources Canada conduct surveys when deciding how to spend its resources. Paradis is free to direct the organization as he sees fit, within its general mandate. For example, if the government has green technology as a central platform point, Paradis can direct Natural Resources Canada towards investigating those technologies (I have no idea if NRC actually does this kind of activity, but whatever) even if the majority of the populace doesn’t think this is what NRC should be doing. Once elected, we defer to our elected representatives on these matters.
However, once Paradis starts interfering with the communication between scientists and the public, he undermines the democratic process. If public scientists’ research conclusions do not support the government’s policies, or what the government wished they would conclude, it is essential that the government not be able to interfere with the communication of this fact. Otherwise how is the populace to decide whether they will continue to support those representatives? If the government gets to control the message of its scientists, how can we trust what the scientists are allowed to say? These lines of communication need to be completely free of interference for representative democracy to work at all.
Mike, The paper is out there, and the attention over the supposed interference with Dallimore (and the actual interference of Paradis and his staff with the release of documents) adds attention to the conflict. The information is there, and while the public may have to connect the dots a bit mor...
Mike,
The paper is out there, and the attention over the supposed interference with Dallimore (and the actual interference of Paradis and his staff with the release of documents) adds attention to the conflict. The information is there, and while the public may have to connect the dots a bit more than without the voice of a government scientist, they can still draw the conclusion that the science isn’t supporting a particular policy choice. The extent of government interference in this case has not prevented the information from getting out. That would be true even if Munro hadn’t requested documents (or if Paradis and his staff had not interfered with the release of those documents).
And again, the government has not interfered with the ability of any of the other scientists on the paper to communicate with the press. At best, the government has controlled the ability of the scientists it employs to respond to inquiries from the press.
Mike, you're asking for additional accountability above and beyond what already exists. Access to Information provides what you are looking for, which is why the Paradis/Togneri case is the more troubling than missing a media deadline. My sense is that most of the work the government does is ne...
Mike,
you’re asking for additional accountability above and beyond what already exists. Access to Information provides what you are looking for, which is why the Paradis/Togneri case is the more troubling than missing a media deadline.
My sense is that most of the work the government does is never reported to the public, and most of what is released is spun. That is, unless someone submits an Access to Information request. This could just be that my experience is with Defence and External Affairs.
Certain (scientific) departments have a mandate to report some of their work directly to the public. Think of the raw meteorological data that Environment Canada produces, or much of what is done in Statistics Canada. Natural Resources Canada (aka NRCan, not to be confused with the National Research Council, NRC) has a very limited mandate to communicate with the public directly (the recent earthquake, for example). The normal funnel of communication to the public is through the Minister’s office.
If you’re unhappy with the politicized messages coming from the Minister’s office, then you can turn to Access to Information. This is where the accountability to citizens without a political filter comes in, not direct democratic communication from civil servants. The danger here is if a Minister’s office interferes with Access to Information requests, then the accountability mechanism breaks down. Luckily, there are other means available to Parliament to pursue and investigate tampering with Access to Information.
Representative democracy gives elected officials the legitimate power to direct the research priorities of government agencies. It doesn't give elected officials the right to use those agencies for their own ends or for anything other than directly furthering the interests of the population they rep...
Representative democracy gives elected officials the legitimate power to direct the research priorities of government agencies. It doesn’t give elected officials the right to use those agencies for their own ends or for anything other than directly furthering the interests of the population they represent. When the government controls scientists access to the media in order to “present a consistent message to the public with respect to its policies” (to quote David Bruggeman), they are using their power to further the interests of the Conservative Party, not the interests of Canadians. This is an abuse of power.
I agree with Mike on this one. I’m not sure how controlling what scientists say to the media would be any different from having a minister who decides what CBC is and isn’t allowed to publish. All of the arguments for “freedom of the press” apply to freedom for scientists to speak to the media.
I think we're forgetting, or at least not mentioning, that the particular scientist in question is employed by the government. There has never been the kind of academic freedom accorded to government employees (to be distinguished from university faculty at state-funded institutions) that there has...
I think we’re forgetting, or at least not mentioning, that the particular scientist in question is employed by the government. There has never been the kind of academic freedom accorded to government employees (to be distinguished from university faculty at state-funded institutions) that there has been to university faculty.
It’s a reasonable inference to think that someone who is employed by the government (or even someone who is a chair of an government advisory board – see Professor Nutt in the U.K., who pushed his own agenda as chair of an advisory board and was rightly sacked for it), speaks for the government when the media is asking them about their work for the government.
That is not pushing party interests, it’s trying to distinguish between official government policy and personal opinion. If a government is presenting mixed messages about one of its policies, it’s reasonable to infer that it is not as committed or serious about that policy, or worse, just incompetent. It’s a kind of political judgment that I would expect from whomever is in power. Both parties do it in the States, and I would expect little different in other countries.
Pingback: Canadian Science Writers Try to Get Election Attention « Pasco Phronesis
Pingback: The Harper Government’s Science Communication Stinks, But Is it Censorship? « Pasco Phronesis