Canadian Bureacracy Can't Answer Simple Question: What's This Study With NASA? 164
Saint Aardvark writes "It seemed like a pretty simple question about a pretty cool topic: an Ottawa newspaper wanted to ask Canada's National Research Council about a joint study with NASA on tracking falling snow in Canada. Conventional radar can see where it's falling, but not the amount — so NASA, in collaboration with the NRC, Environment Canada and a few universities, arranged flights through falling snow to analyse readings with different instruments. But when they contacted the NRC to get the Canadian angle, "it took a small army of staffers— 11 of them by our count — to decide how to answer, and dozens of emails back and forth to circulate the Citizen's request, discuss its motivation, develop their response, and "massage" its text." No interview was given: "I am not convinced we need an interview. A few lines are fine. Please let me see them first," says one civil servant in the NRC emails obtained by the newspaper under the Access to Information act. By the time the NRC finally sorted out a boring, technical response, the newspaper had already called up a NASA scientist and got all the info they asked for; it took about 15 minutes."
As a Canadian (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Scientists like to be precise (Score:4, Interesting)
As a science journalist who has been in this situation a few times, I would ask you, how do you think you would get a more accurate story:
(1) By letting the journalist speak to the scientist, who can explain the research to the journalist,
or
(2) by refusing to communicate with the journalist, and letting the journalist figure it out himself, from an abstract or technical paper?
Let's assume that the reporter is dumb and doesn't understand the science. Choice (2) will give you an even less accurate story. You want to spread ignorance? Don't explain things to journalists. Don't let the public know what you're doing.
But actually, the Canadians have pretty good science journalists and editors.
When I write a complicated story, and it's important to get every fact right, I tell the source, "Let me read my notes back to you to make sure I'm getting you right."
If you're a scientist, and you're worried about being quoted accurately, I would suggest that you say, "Could you read your notes back to me to make sure you're quoting me right?"
That's not the same as reviewing the story for approval. The reporter has a right to write whatever he wants. You have a right to make sure that when he quotes you, he gets your quotes right. A competent PR guy would know how to do that.
A competent PR guy would look at the reporter's other stories, if he had any doubt, and see whether he gets his facts right. But the Ottawa Citizen is a real newspaper, so they should know what they're doing.
But this incident goes beyond worrying about errors. They're terrified that somehow, something might possibly go wrong, despite past experience, and that fear weighs more heavily than the interest in doing their job and informing and educating the public about what their government is doing with their tax money.
Re:Bureacracy sucks but (Score:2, Interesting)
My wife and I are scientists, we have dealt with publication and dissemination issues here, including some on sensitive environmental and health issues. Having said that, your statement is pure neckbeard FUD. The 'censoring' going on here in Canada isn't stopping pure science from happening at all. It is simply meant to stop FUD spreading BS from social 'scientists' who are looking for funding. The problem is that everyone looking for funding has gotten on the "think of the children/environment/elderly" emotional circlejerk bandwagon. Honestly, as a physicist, I am angry as hell about people getting the public riled up about WIFI causing cancer, etc. I can truly appreciate why many 'scientists' aren't supposed to use the media to drum up support. Let them publish some real findings in a peer reviewed paper, then they can do what they like.
I know this will be labeled as a troll. But honestly, fuck off with your socialist propaganda bullshit.
Re:Harper has destroyed our government.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Harper is basically a climate change denier in a position of power. If snow studies indicate climate change, he'll have to suppress that sort of information. It's why he's cut budgets on Environment Canada, muzzled all government scientists (all requests to speak with one must go through a political officer first). Heck, there was one investigating some virus on salmon, and people were denied requests to talk to the scientist involved (it was interesting).
He's basically trying to sell off all the oil he can as quickly as possible - why, I don't know. The price of oil isn't going down, so it seems silly to sell so much now when selling it later can command much more money. (We aren't going to give up our oil habit that easily, but we'll transition to other fuels for our cars. And oil will become a hard to get speciality fuel - people want their old-timey muscle cars and the like).
Hell, he wants to ship Canada's oil to Asia. Why not keep it here, refine it here, and then make our gas prices cheap? Gas's $1.40 a litre (roughly $5.50/gal). And you want to sell our oil that could be made into gas locally to lower gas prices?
Hell, why not ship it eastward to the eastern refineries?
Re:Bureacracy sucks but (Score:1, Interesting)
My wife is an environmental scientist, she has dealt with the exact policies you have described, particularly with regards to (publicly funded) cancer data, some of it relating to the oil and gas industries in Alberta. I can fully appreciate the fact that the government wants to get the facts on what is happening before some 'scientist' with an agenda gets ahold of some 'scientific' correlation, and turns it into a causation; causing public panic.
You speak as if the oil sands and asbestos are closed cases. This tells me who is the real scientist here. If you have assumed the conclusion, you might as well just excuse yourself from rational discussion. Rationally, this sort of axiomatic discussion should be removed from public discourse, at least until both sides can fully explore the issue (through peer review). Their is nothing corporatist or self serving about it, in fact, those with the agenda seek to use publicly funded data to further their own forlorn conclusions. Conclusions based upon nothing more than political dogma.
Re:Bureacracy sucks but (Score:2, Interesting)
Asbestos IS pretty much a closed case.. no???
Oilsands... well..
I lost faith in environmental concerns of the government when it was revealed that all of the monitoring of the rivers were using old equipment designed to monitor chemicals used in the PULP AND PAPER industry.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/12/07/f-weston-oilsands.html [www.cbc.ca]
I grew up in Alberta and am here now. We used to hear stories from our engineers coming back from the states in shock at the disregard for the environment.
A friend of friend owns an environmental testing company. The image of him making "sweeping under the carpet" motions is burned into my brain. His business is NOT to catch environmental issues... he's paid by the oil companies to show compliance.
The oil companies rebelled at the idea of paying the royalties they had already agreed to pay. They do the accounting on which the royalties are based and when the Alberta government reviewed the royalties they stomped around and corrupted the government in order to get their way. They've since thrown their weight behind the new "Wildrose Party" which is promising everything voters want... but of course will give the oil industry priority. They might get elected on Monday.