Canada’s steady slide into darkness

Peter
Peter Jackson
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

I was born with normal arms and legs, but I narrowly missed a very different outcome.

My mother was presented with the option to take a drug to fight morning sickness. The drug was thalidomide. My mother resisted. If she hadn’t, I could have been born with severe physical defects.

The thalidomide fiasco was a watershed moment.

Thereafter, health agencies instituted stricter oversight of drug testing and approval.

But mistakes still occur on occasion.

Science is not perfect.

Global warming skeptics often point to the ice age scare in the 1970s, a theory that was hyped in the media but not widely endorsed by climatologists.

In 1999, governments and businesses were urged by a growing chorus of experts to make costly adjustments to their computer systems.

The theory was that computer chronometers could not handle the rollover into the year 2000 (Y2K). No mass meltdown occurred.

Science has its low points.

Nonetheless it is misleading to gather these droplets of failure amid a sea of success in an effort to discredit the very foundations of scientific inquiry.

Yet, that is exactly what is happening these days — on an alarming scale.

Oil companies spent millions propping up a facade of counter-information to fight mainstream climate science. Alternative medicine charlatans regularly smear the medical “establishment” in an attempt to divert scrutiny from themselves.

In response, one would expect the government to act as mediator and referee, protecting citizens from overzealous pharmaceutical companies and false prophets alike. It should fund and promote the highest calibre of research, and make that research open and transparent for all to see.

It should.

But in Canada, it doesn’t. At least, not anymore.

Headlines in the past week or so have revealed a truly alarming state of affairs.

It’s no secret that Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to fear science. The Conservatives pay lip service to climate change, for example, but surreptitiously undermine efforts to combat it.

When Canada recently dropped out of a United Nations convention on drought, it sent a clear signal of environmental isolationism. Harper has played spoiler before: in support of our asbestos industry — now defunct — Canada single-handedly vetoed a UN vote to require warning labels on the product for overseas sales.

And the government now seems to be on a mission to sugarcoat the bitter reality of Alberta oil.

Last year, government scientists protested in Ottawa against what they see as a sweeping policy to shut them up. This week, the country’s information commissioner announced an extensive review to see if and how scientists are being muzzled.

It’s astounding to think Canada has become an enemy of science itself. Yet, that is exactly what has transpired.

Where science should actually be driving policy, it is now slave to the dictates of Conservative ideology.

Dalhousie Prof. Jeffrey Hutchings notes how seal research he did with Fisheries and Oceans in the late 2000s was suppressed because it conflicted with the minister’s talking points.

It’s all fine to say science is faulty, and that scientists are also driven by their own ideology. This may be true in a few cases, and not in most.

But the big question is, what on Earth can possibly replace it as a rational basis for public policy?

“What makes a method of enquiry count as scientific is not that it employs microscopes, rats, computers or people in stained white coats, but that it seeks to test itself at every turn,” wrote Anthony Gottlieb in Intelligent Life magazine three years ago.

“If a method is as rigorous and cautious as it can be, it counts as good science; if it isn’t, it doesn’t.”

Hutchings says science cannot work in a climate of strict government oversight.

“(When) you inhibit science, you inhibit the acquisition of knowledge,” he wrote in The Toronto Star last month. “Is this something that best serves society?”

 

Next week: Fighting back

 

Peter Jackson is The Telegram’s commentary editor. Email: pjackson@thetelegram.com.

Organizations: United Nations, Intelligent Life magazine

Geographic location: Canada, Alberta, Ottawa The Toronto Star

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • GINN
    April 06, 2013 - 08:40

    An amazing amalgam of hearsay, innuendo and figments of his imagination, this article is just another opposition propaganda puff piece without any decent research.

  • Anon
    April 04, 2013 - 08:12

    Saelcove don't know what a scientist is.

  • Ed Power
    April 03, 2013 - 16:36

    And so we hear from the intellectual "elite" of the Conservative Party demographic - "Most scientists today are nut bars"....

  • Jason
    April 03, 2013 - 14:24

    unfortunately the general public has little idea what "science" actually is. just ask someone to give the difference between the definitions of "theory" and "scientific theory". if its not justin beiber or kim kardashian, then average joe just doesn't give a hoot. probably why our planet will be in rough shape by the end of this century.

  • saelcove
    April 03, 2013 - 10:32

    Most scientists today are nut bars

    • Tony Rockel
      April 03, 2013 - 19:01

      Have you ever had a conversation with a real scientist? I'd like to know how you arrived at such a remarkable conclusion.

  • Always Ask
    April 03, 2013 - 09:49

    The Conservatives are not against science because they dare to question some aspects. The fact that there is questioning is an indication that they are pro-science because the nature of science is to ask and investigate. Challenging widely spread scientific theories is important to the advancement of humanity because sometimes these popular theories are just plain wrong as they were they thought the world was flat, non-whites were non-human, and smoking was good for you.

    • Chantal
      April 03, 2013 - 13:24

      ... and in the same vein, Stalin proved himself an intellectual maestro of music because he dared to dismiss Shostakovich from the Soviet Conservatory and banned his mucsic from being played. In bravely challenging Shostakovich and his popular but probably wrong artistic theories, he helped advance humanity.