What control should the state have over its science?
I end with these questions, to which I would love to see responses in the comments section at The Bubble Chamber (or here), by follow-up blog posts or by email:
- 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?
- More broadly, what role should science play in politics and politics play in science?
- Is it even possible to separate science and politics?