Speaking the Language of Science, not the Language of Neoconservatism

Our local Liberal candidate in Kingston, Ted Hsu, said something in an introductory speech recently that I found compelling.

A man with both an economic and environmental background, he told us that he is fluent in English, French, Mandarin and the language of science. And I realized just how important that was.

All professionals become fluent in the language of their craft. Whether it's computer-speak, medical terminology or whatever, it is the language that allows them to interact with their peers.

Gary Goodyear, the Conservative Science Minister, does not speak the language of science. In fact, he doesn't really believe in science at all, or at least not in evolution, one of the fundamentals of science.

So how does he communicate with stakeholders? Being a neoconservative, there's really only one word he needs to understand: "no".

Because this is a government that does not appreciate science, and does not feel that it's something government should be worried about, despite the fact that it plays an integral role in most aspects of our lives.

Marc Garneau, the Liberal science critic, was an astronaut and the first Canadian in space. He understands not only the language, but the importance of science.

In his new book Rogue in Power, Christian Nadeau is also concerned with the course of action that the Harper government is taking.

In the field of science, the Conservatives also show their mistrust towards anything that could run counter to their traditionalist convictions. There have been some astonishing statements, too embarrassing to be really funny, such as Science Minister Gary Goodyear's remark to a Globe and Mail interviewer who asked him if he accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. The minister refused to answer, citing religious reasons. His ambiguous retractions later on were not of a sort that would reassure the scientific community.

It would be simplistic, however, to put all the Conservatives who are close to Harper together in the same creationist basket. What is most striking is not so much the statements and shocking revelations regarding members of Harper's team, but rather its persistence in treating the scientific world and basic research as something of secondary importance. It is hard to understand the Conservatives' disdain. This attitude could be explained in part by their religious convictions or antiscientific prejudices, but the likeliest hypothesis is that they simply do not see basic science as useful. In the homogeneous moral universe they inhabit, science must not run counter to their concept of good, and it is of interest only if it serves this concept. If it doesn't, it is of little value in their eyes. (1)

He reminds us of the controversy surrounding the Mont-Megantic Observatory, when the government cut the subsidy provided to the observatory by $325,000 while allotting $2million to a consultation process on rebuilding Quebec City's military armoury, clearly showing their priorities. They later reinstated the funding but only on a temporary basis.

I wrote previously of how Christian Paradis is now demanding that all scientific announcements be funnelled through his office, comparing it to Bernhard Rust, the Nazi "man of science", who also ran his department with tight message control.

"Our national policies will not be revoked or modified, even for scientists." Adolf Hitler

We have also learned recently that the government has privatized the National Research Council's government-owned publishing arm, denying free access to many scientific journals.

On May 2 we must learn a new language. It's called the language of saying goodbye to Stephen Harper. We are better than this.

Sources:

1. Rogue in Power: Why Stephen Harper is remaking Canada by Stealth, By Christian Nadeau, Lorimer Press, ISBN: 978-1-55277-730-5, Pg. 86-88.

Angry Canadian Scientists Tell Harper Enough is Enough

That Stephen Harper does not believe in science is a given, but his drastic cuts to the community, has prompted more than one hundred Canadian scientists to draft an open letter to the Prime Minister, suggesting that Canada is taking huge steps backwards in important research.

Their near-sightedness in attempting to close a BC injection site, is more about their phony 'tough on crime' measures, than protecting vulnerable Canadians, or helping to cure drug addiction.

But that is only one on a long list of ideological driven measures that threaten to stall any progress toward scientific discoveries.

Harper manipulating the scientific process
Toronto Star
August 07, 2009 04:30 AM
Evan Wood
Director of the Urban Health Program at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS

The fate of Vancouver's medically supervised safer injecting facility, known as Insite, hangs in the balance as three B.C. Court of Appeal justices weigh arguments by the Harper government aimed at overturning an earlier ruling that provided the program a brief respite from the Tories' efforts to close it.

In that ruling, Justice Ian Pitfield weighed the science and concluded: "I cannot agree with the submission that an addict must feed his addiction in an unsafe environment when a safe environment that may lead to rehabilitation is the alternative."

As someone involved in the evaluation of Insite, I have seen first-hand how the Conservatives continue to score major political points as a result of their determination to close the program.

Early concerns about the Conservative party's policies under Stephen Harper emerged in the areas of reproductive technology and stem cell research. More recently, cuts to basic research in the Tories' stimulus budget as well as Conservative Science Minister Gary Goodyear's unscientific comments on "creationism" versus evolution prompted an open letter to Harper by more than 2,000 top Canadian scientists decrying "huge steps backward for Canadian science" under the Conservatives.

With the closure of the office of the National Science Advisor – the independent and arm's-length position created to provide non-partisan recommendations to the federal government on scientific matters – even the prestigious scientific journal Nature recently had harsh criticism for the Harper government. Topping the list is the Tories' handling of Insite, which constitutes this government's most blatant contempt for science.

Among the most egregious examples of the Tories' manipulation on this file are their apparent efforts to suppress and cloud research, and their unwillingness to accept scientific findings. When initially faced with the decision whether or not to allow Insite to continue to operate legally, then health minister Tony Clement stated that "more research is necessary."

Ironically, as part of this announcement he declared a moratorium on injection site research trials and intervened to halt funding to an Insite research grant, which had already been externally peer-reviewed and recommended for funding by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Rather than promoting "more research," his interference with the recommendations coming from this transparent peer-review process was in clear violation of international scientific standards.

In fact, Insite is undoubtedly the most highly studied health clinic in Canadian history with almost three dozen studies now published describing the program's positive impacts. These are not consultants' reports but rather rigorous peer-reviewed studies published in the most prestigious medical periodicals, including The New England Journal of Medicine.

Ironically, the Conservatives have responded to this volume of research by clouding the issue and stating that the research has actually "raised questions" and that there is a "growing academic debate." These statements are highly disingenuous.

The published research has answered many questions, not raised them. Furthermore, rather than academic debate, a near unanimous academic consensus has emerged in the mainstream scientific community. For instance, more than 130 prominent Canadian scientists recently published an open letter to Harper charging that his conduct surrounding Insite was putting ideology before the protection of public health.

In the United States, when the Bush administration was faced with pesky scientists concerned about various areas of public health, such as climate change, the Republicans appointed "expert" committees and embraced "scientific" information produced by right-wing think-tanks.

In 2006, the Harper government took a page from the Republican handbook when it selected an "expert advisory committee," giving the members no more than six months to solicit and conclude definitive research on the impact of Insite. The government also stipulated that researchers conduct this work in secrecy and agree not to present their research at scientific meetings or in medical journals until six months after the committee's final report.

Any scientist would agree that this is an unrealistic timeline to prepare and complete in-depth public health research, and the gag order was a shock to many. While several well-meaning Canadian scientists participated on the advisory committee, the flawed process the Tories set up was well described in an open letter signed by several of Canada's leading addiction researchers: "We see no possibility whatsoever that any data or information which does not yet exist in some fashion can be collected in such a time frame" and decried the fact that the work had to be conducted in secrecy, stating that "scientific knowledge be openly accessible to the public realm."

Despite the constraints placed upon it, the Conservatives' committee concluded that Insite had a range of benefits and there was no evidence of harm. Having failed to discredit the scientific evidence, the Tories then embraced purchased "critiques" of Insite that later disclosures revealed actually were funded by the RCMP and posted on a website hosted by the conservative law enforcement lobby group known as the Drug Free America Foundation.

With Insite's future in doubt, the decision now before the B.C. Court of Appeal has profound implications for the role of science in Canada's approach to addiction. Regardless of the outcome, those sitting in the court of public opinion should be aware of the lengths the Harper government will go to ensure that the scientific process is sufficiently manipulated to suit its ideological needs.

Evan Wood is an associate professor in the department of medicine at the University of British Columbia.

Christian Paradis Says OOPS! Of Course I Believe in Science

When the federal government cut funding to the largest astronomical observatory in eastern North America at Mont-Mégantic Observatory, near Sherbrooke, Quebec; the opposition parties did their jobs and opposed.

Still trying to win back favour in that province, Christian Paradis jumped in and restored the much needed funds. (Christian Paradis is on of the Conservative MPs involved in the "In and Out" scam, so we know he doesn't much believe in accountability either)

Ironically , there is some good coming out of the parliamentary crisis and continued threat to the Harper government.

Canadians are getting what they want simply because Harper and his gang don't want to lose their jobs.

However, I still worry about who's going to pay for all this, since recovery will be very slow once the recession is over. Flaherty still won't admit that cutting the GST was one of the most bone headed moves ever made by a finance minister, and Harper is huffing and puffing about not raising taxes.

I guess he has some magic wand we don't know about, because most Canadians realize that somewhere down the road our taxes are either going to have be raised or government spending will have to come to a halt. Flaherty was a personal injuries lawyer, the bottom of the food chain, and is ill equipped to handle an economy, let alone an economic crisis.

But for now, science in Canada won a small victory from a Party that clearly doesn't believe in science. Why else would they put Gary Goodyear in charge?

Observatory gets funding restored
Canwest News Service
April 16, 2009

A decision by the Conservative government to restore funding to the largest astronomical observatory in eastern North America received a qualified welcome from the Liberals on Wednesday.

The Mont-Mégantic Observatory, near Sherbrooke, Que., was facing cuts of $325,000 to its annual operating budget.

However, after complaints from the community and opposition MPs, the government of Prime Minister Stephen reversed the cuts on Wednesday. (Was this a Freudian slip? Others are referring to Harper as 'King Stephen', since he has put an end to democracy in this country, and now he is simply referred to as PM Stephen. Ha ha.)

Liberal MP Marc Garneau, a former astronaut and head of the Canadian Space Agency, approved of the restored funding, but said the cuts were indicative of the Conservatives' "inability to grasp the importance of these investments (in science and research)."

Before the cuts were reversed, Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe said the Conservatives were "attacking science."

Duceppe noted that MP Christian Paradis, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Quebec lieutenant, had been informed of the cuts from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council even though the observatory was in his own riding of Mégantic-L'Erable.

The observatory is owned by Université de Montréal and Université Laval, and it has an annual budget of $1 million. It has had a role in developing new astronomy techniques and is considered this country's best telescope for training astronomers.

Back to - The Christian Paradis Story: Maybe There's a Scandal and Maybe there Isn't

Gary Goodyear's Temper Shocks University Teachers

Gary Goodyear's little hissy fits, are not unlike those of his boss, but his downright rudeness to his constituents makes one wonder who he thinks he is.

He works for them, and when in a meeting must treat them with respect. But when the questions got too tough for our little anti-science minister, he just blew up and stormed out. Nasty.

They're getting the last laugh though now that 'Mr. High and Mighty' is caught up in an adoption scandal.

Challenging the Commonplace
Monday, March 2, 2009
Cabinet Minister Blows His Top

Poor form, Mr. Goodyear, very poor form. Canada's Minister of Science and Technology engaged in conduct unbecoming his position in a meeting between himself and two representatives of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Bookended by policy advisor Wesley Moore and a civil servant who was there to take notes, Goodyear soon began insulting and shouting at his guests.

CAUT, a lobby group that represents 65,000 staff at 121 colleges and universities, had planned to raise concerns over the government's handling of research funding. But within moments, it became clear they wouldn't get very far.

“The minister was very angry,” said David Robinson, associate executive director of CAUT. “He was raising his voice and pointing his finger … He said everyone loves their [federal budget] and we said, ‘A lot of our members don't love it'… and he said, ‘That's because you're lying to them, misleading them.'"

The talks, Mr. Robinson said, went from bad to worse. In 15 years on the job, he “never had a meeting like that.”...When CAUT staff said the Conservatives have a spotty record on science and noted they abolished the office of the national science adviser, Mr. Robinson said, the minister's assistant screamed at them to shut up.

“Then the minister said, ‘You've burned all your bridges with us!' and they stormed out.“In all the meetings I've been in like this, I've never been shouted at and told to shut up,” Mr. Robinson said. The civil servant who escorted them to the elevator suggested it would not even be a good idea to return to the minister's office to collect their coats, he said. Instead, she retrieved them.

Maybe my 58 years doesn't make me old enough to remember another public official blowing up at representatives of a constituency, but this kind of scene is new to me.

And I'm disgusted by it.

Does this sound like a rational man? What is he doing as a cabinet minister? I think it has more to do with who propelled Mr. Goodyear's career: The Religious Right. They were promised an end to abortion and same-sex marriage, and when that didn't happen, have had to settle for an end to science.

Harper Makes Scientific Breakthrough and Made it Disappear

Despite all the claims that Stephen Harper doesn't believe in science because of his religion, he very much believes in the value of science. Why else is he selling it off?

Now running the National Citizens Coalition from the inside, every single thing they campaigned on, is being brought to fruition.

He once said that when he got through with Canada, we wouldn't recognize it. Who knew that it would only take 3 1/2 years to turn us into a country most of us clearly no longer recognize.

From a gestapo like immigration policy to American style justice. I don't even know what defines us now.

Transfer of Federal Labs
A Blueprint for Dismantling Public Science

On June 6, 2008, the Treasury Board released the long-awaited report of the Independent Panel of Experts studying the transfer of federal government laboratories to academia and/or the private sector. Following up on the government’s intentions outlined in the 2007 federal budget, the panel identified five “early candidates” for transfer. The first two will be Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Canadian Cereal Research and Innovation Laboratory in Winnipeg, and Natural Resources Canada's Geosciences Laboratory in Ottawa.

From August to December 2007, the panel scoured the world for models of government S&T commercialization via “major programs of privatization of both regulatory and non-regulatory laboratories and/or through creation of new government agencies that have special authority to pursue private-sector-like activities.”

The range of initial transfer arrangements envisaged for Canada spans private-sector involvement to outright divestiture. But the end product is clear: the “partnerships” are to be “the initial arrangement in an evolving relationship” intended to move government science facilities from “a joint sponsorship arrangement involving government to one in which the federal government is no longer involved in ownership, governance or management.”

The report is nothing less than a roadmap for dismantling government science. The identification of five initial candidates for transfer is only a preliminary step. The panel received proposals for transferring government labs in a vast range of areas: “agriculture; agri-food; horticulture; viticulture; fisheries and aquaculture; environment and ecosystems; ocean systems; health and biological sciences; medical devices; geosciences; space and earth observation; mining; nanotechnology; photonics; forestry; water systems.”

“Nearly all” of the 56 proposals received were considered to be potential candidates in the long-term federal strategy for divestiture of federal science, not simply those identified as “highly ranked proposals” relatively close to finalization. Among the “promising” submissions were those that envisaged “a proposed divestiture by government of physical assets, human resources or intellectual property (e.g., data resources) or personnel, by transfer to non-governmental entities.”

The panel is keen to see the process push forward. In order to generate momentum, the panel solicited proposals for lab transfers, although there was insufficient time for interested parties to submit fully developed proposals.

As an indication of the haste with which the government would like to move, the five ‘early candidates’ for transfer were unanimously recommended by the panel because they can be transferred in 12 months. Within a year – slightly more than the time that has elapsed since the 2007 budget first indicated the government’s interest in transferring government labs – the government would like to see “completion of the necessary legal agreements to effect the new governance and management arrangements; the identification of the administrative and scientific leadership of the new entity, and the formulation of an integrated research program and detailed business plan.”

What the panel has explicitly not attempted to achieve is greater opportunities for federal scientists to collaborate with research peers within and beyond the federal government. If this were so, the panel would have recommended removing existing impediments standing in the way of joint research, such as restrictions on research funding and the ability of government scientists to lead collaborative research projects.

In fact, the panel is quite explicit that the myriad “examples of useful collaboration and networking” that currently exist are fatally flawed by the fact that they are “not-for-profit, cooperative arrangements”, that they contemplate no changes in the employment status of personnel, and involve no change in ownership of assets or sources of funding. Rather, the report seeks to shed government ownership and management of assets, personnel and programs.

The report must be viewed in the context of the government’s larger policy direction and philosophy. The present government is determined not simply to promote the needs of industry within government, but to restrict and reduce the capacity of government to exist independently of, and potentially to interfere with, private industry.

From his days as president of the right-wing National Citizens’ Coalition, Stephen Harper has been captivated by the goal of diminishing government to the point where it can be “drowned in a bathtub.”

From the sale of government buildings to the $1.3 billion Public-Private Partnerships fund created in the 2008 budget, privatization forms an integral part of the government’s conservative philosophy of deregulation, and permanently diminished government spending and functioning.

With respect to government science, in the conservative mindset, there is no justification for government occupying profit-making opportunities or competing for resources with private entities. The public sector must not compete with the private sector, and for-profit laboratory services is a growing industry. Rather than viewing the recruitment and retention challenge facing federal science-based departments and agencies as an opportunity to improve the attractiveness of federal scientific careers, the report sees the problem as the federal sector squeezing out private industry in the competition for scarce talent, with the solution lying in making federal government talent available to academia and private industry.

But the government also understands that non-regulatory science is closely connected to, and an important precondition of, regulatory science and the regulatory capacity of government. This is precisely why the erosion of public science is a starting place and part of a larger attack on the regulatory capacity of government.

In the panel’s view, the question whether to transfer federal labs is not a question of whether federal labs are regulatory or non-regulatory in nature, but rather those “which the federal government does not require exclusive ownership and operational control”. Quite appropriately, the panel noted the close interrelationship between non-regulatory and regulatory science, advocating privatization of regulatory labs as well as non-regulatory labs that provide “critical input” to regulatory functions. Indeed, the very presumption that government is the natural and most appropriate provider of regulatory science is “too broad a generalization.”

What then can we expect in the near future? The panel’s report suggests procurement rules should be circumvented in establishing the new partnership arrangements, given the time, energy and costs associated with observing procurement rules. In this light, it is ironic that the panel’s report speaks glowingly of the United States Department of Energy’s National Laboratories.

The DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration is responsible for administering the contract for managing the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. For over 50 years, the two labs have been operated by the University of California; in the 1990s, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recorded numerous performance problems at the labs, including “cost and schedule overruns on major projects ... and violations of nuclear safety rules that resulted in overexposure of some workers to radiation at both laboratories.”

Facilities management has also been an area of GAO scrutiny and concern, since aging facilities have led to increased need for maintenance and repairs.

Procurement, property management, emergency management, and other mission support activities have been ongoing areas of GAO primary sources of concern. Problems with contract administration and project management led the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 1990 to designate the DOE as “a high-risk area for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.”

The government faces real challenges in its bid to dismantle government science. A hint of the bumpy ride ahead is contained in the panel’s distaste for the way in which government lab privatization has been characterized.

Employing the word ‘transfer’ was “not conducive to constructive dialogue with some stakeholders” because it did little to conceal the government’s intention to disassemble government science. Happily, euphemisms like “inter-sectoral S&T integration” and “alternatives to sole government ownership and control” allowed the panel to generate a more positive “and even enthusiastic” tone for consultations.

As a sign of more intractable problems that may lie ahead, the panel notes that “non-federal parties are generally unwilling to undertake ownership of federal laboratories without long-term funding to defray the cost of operating and maintaining the facilities. Moreover, the opportunities for full transfer are limited by the fact that some federal laboratories undertake science activities that do not fit with the interests and capabilities of academia or the private sector.” The problem is a familiar one in the annals of privatization, but a common solution available to government is to prepare the labs for transfer by making them attractive to academia and the private sector – much as AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited) is currently being prepared for sale to the private sector.

The reason for the government’s haste is clear: opposition to this sort of move is inconvenient, and Canadians have learned to be sceptical of the claims made for privatization. Indeed, the Ontario government of Mike Harris – representatives of which now occupy cabinet positions in the federal government – met its demise partly on account of failed experiments in privatization. But only time will tell whether sufficient concern coalesces in order to reverse the dismantling of government science.

This means that our health and safety will be determined by profit - not our actual health and safety.

More Postings on the Reform-Conservative's War on Science:

1. Angry Canadian Scientists Tell Harper Enough is Enough