Science that dare not speak its name -

Science that dare not speak its name


The Privy Council Office bars a salmon researcher from speaking with reporters.

Science, one of the world’s top research journals, published Miller’s findings in January. The journal considered the work so significant it notified “over 7,400” journalists worldwide about Miller’s “Suffering Salmon” study. Science told Miller to “please feel free to speak with journalists.” It advised reporters to contact Diane Lake, a media officer with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Vancouver, “to set up interviews with Dr. Miller.”

Miller heads a $6-million salmon-genetics project at the federal Pacific Biological Station on Vancouver Island. The documents show major media outlets were soon lining up to speak with Miller, but the Privy Council Office said no to the interviews.


Science that dare not speak its name

  1. Would hate for publicly-funded researchers to speak… publicly.

  2. Yet another scientist our govt won’t allow to speak publically….she joins a long list.

  3. Thank you for posting this, Canadians deserve to know how the ‘Harper Government’ is undermining the country by censoring scientist and science in general.

    Perhaps we will see a column writing about it so we may see to just what effect this censorship is having on Canada and scientist in this country.

  4. Is this anything more than a left wing scientist with a bee in his bonnet about Con government?

    As far as I can tell, Miller published her findings in a leading research journal, did interviews via email but not in person and she is appearing before commission in a few weeks. 

    And  brave Prof Hutchings is leading charge against censorship! 

    Also, I think it is funny that left wing types personalize it so much. Apparently, Harper stays up late at night muzzling scientists for no particular reason other than Cons are anti-science. 

    If Miller is being muzzled, it is because she has proof that other Fisheries scientists were incompetent or Government did something bad in past and now bureaucracy is covering up its past mistakes.

    • Miller is definitely being muzzled. That’s pretty apparant had you bothered to read the article you responded to.

      She was not allowed to provide any interview responses, that’s why the journalists had to put together a story based off the “highly technical” information in the Science Journal.  They need her to put a laymans take on it, so that people like you and I might be able to understand it.

      I highly doubt Harper stays up late at night, much more likely is that there’s simply a general edict out, no science regarding the environment is publicized without first being thoroughly vetted so that they can be sure no hint of reality not matching their ideology is published.

      • “Top bureaucrats in Ottawa have muzzled a leading fisheries scientist …. Science, one of the world’s top research journals, published Miller’s findings in January … ” 

        I actually did read the article, and not just headline, Thwim and that’s how I know Ms. Miller wasn’t censored. 

        “An iron curtain has been draped over communication of science in the last five to six years,” he said.

        Hahahahahahahaha …..

        Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

        A: Yes, but only just.

        • I realize going beyond the first paragraph is difficult for you, especially when it doesn’t already agree with your preconceived notions, but give it a try.

          Try reading my second paragraph.

        • Also, Since you keep quoting that article, perhaps it would behoove you to read the rest of it.

          Like this point:
          “E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are
          mainly responsible?

          I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I
          would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming
          since the 1950s is due to human activity. ”

          Hell, you may want even want to simply read the rest of quote you cut short: ” I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per
          decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The
          positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical
          significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and
          much less likely for shorter periods. ”

          I know, I know, that doesn’t support your spin, so you hope, like most ideologues with an axe to grind, that people don’t bother to actually look for the real information and just accept your half-truths as the full thing.

          • Superstitions arise as the result of the spurious identification of patterns.

            Beliefs come first; reasons second. That’s the insightful message of “The Believing Brain,” by Michael Shermer, the founder of Skeptic magazine.

            Mr. Shermer marshals an impressive array of evidence from game theory, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology. A human ancestor hears a rustle in the grass. Is it the wind or a lion? 


          • Thwim, thanks for a good answer to TonyAdams. I never bother to even read his dishonest posts.

          • When the rustle is accompanied by lion spoor, and most of the hunters in the tribe pointing out the things like lion claw marks on the nearby trees, arguing that it’s only wind gets you eaten.

            The difference with global warming is that it’s not only you that’s going to have to pay the price, it’s myself as well.

          • And it looks like your points have been refuted, yet you completely ignor the matter and act as though he is somehow incorrect. There’s something to be said for it…

    • I hope you didn’t throw your arm out with that spin attempt, TA.

    • What is a “left wing scientist”? Or, for that matter, a “right wing scientist”?

  5. Prof. Hutchings needs to put a sock in it!  As the article states:

    “The Privy Council Office and the Fisheries Department said Miller has not been permitted to discuss her work because of the Cohen Commission, a judicial inquiry created by the prime minister to look into declines of the famed Fraser River sockeye salmon. She is expected to appear before the commission in late August.”

    The Cohen Commission is the first of it’s kind to seriously study all aspects of the Fraser River sockeye – even the First Nation illegal “for profit” fishing that brave FN people like Gail Sparrow are speaking out about.   DFO are pissed they are not in control and they have to follow the rules.

    DFO are a joke (they did such a good job with the North Atlantic cod) and are looking for validation = more money = same old story.  When I worked at fisheries in Ottawa in the ’70’s, there were so many scientific studies submitted for publication to the Journal that if a sockeye salmon ‘farted’ in the middle of the Pacific ocean, some scientist was recording it and writing a paper on it.

    Read Alexandra Morton who is fighting for the fish.

    Stick to your guns PCO and let the Cohen Commission do its job!

    • What?

      Why would the Cohen Commission care if this lady speaks to the media about the research she has conducted? 

  6. Harper Conservatives. What a bunch of douchebags. Sorry, I can’t find a more eloquent way of putting it.

  7. Where are all the rightwing free speech warriors now? Are they such cowards that they will not criticize the Harper government for censoring scientists and prevent public servants from serving the public?

    I am sick of the rightwing fundamentalists like Harper censoring scientists and destroying our research institutions.

  8. Viruses evolve.  Ergo there are no viruses.  The sockeye salmon are dying because God hates wild salmon, and also because he’s watching his mercury intake.

  9. A reporter for Science, Sara Reardon, has written an excellent article in the journal, entitled “Canadian Fish Scientist ‘Muzzled’ by Government”, dated July 28, 2011. I strongly suggest you read it, as it gives a very nicely worded explanation of many details. This action by our government is entirely unacceptable, for many reasons, many of which have been listed here. I feel very sorry for the government-funded scientists – they either gag themselves or speak and accept the serious consequences. This is government funded research, funded in turn by the taxpayers, and the science is being withheld from the public that paid for it. A disgusting government action. I have lost respect.