It is as clear and chilling a statement of intent as you are likely to read. Scientists should be “the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin? North Korean leader Kim Jong-un? No, Ian Boyd, chief scientific adviser at the UK’s Department for Environment.
Boyd’s doctrine is a neat distillation of policy in Britain, Canada and Australia. These governments have suppressed or misrepresented inconvenient findings on climate change, pollution, pesticides, fisheries and wildlife. They have shut down programs that produce unwelcome findings and sought to muzzle scientists. This is a modern version of Soviet
Lysenkoism: crushing academic dissent on behalf of bad science and corporate power.
Writing in an online journal, Boyd argued that if scientists speak freely, they create conflict between themselves and policymakers, leading to a “chronically deep-seated mistrust of scientists that can undermine the delicate foundation upon which science builds relevance.” This, in turn, “could set back the cause of science in government.” So they should avoid “suggesting that policies are either right or wrong.” If they must speak out, they should do so through “embedded advisers (such as: Shut up, speak through me, don’t dissent — or your behavior will ensure that science becomes irrelevant.)
Note that the conflicts between science and policy are caused by scientists, rather than by politicians ignoring or abusing the evidence. Or by chief scientific advisers.
In an online question-and-answer session hosted by his department, Boyd maintained that 50 percent of tuberculosis infections among cattle herds are caused by badgers. He repeated the claim in an official document called Science to Inform TB Policy. However, as the analyst Jamie McMillan points out, the figure has been sexed up from inadequate data. Like the 45-minute claim in the Iraq debate, it is “spurious, simple to take on board, and crucial in convincing parliament.”
The badger cull as a whole defies the findings of the ￡49 million (US$78.6 million) study the previous government commissioned. It has been thoroughly dissected by the leading scientists in the field, which might explain why Boyd is so keen to shut them up. It is one of many ways in which his department has binned the evidence in setting its policies.
On Sunday Boyd’s boss, British Secretary of State for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs Owen Paterson, told the Tory party conference not to worry about global warming.
“I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries,” he said.
A few weeks ago on Any Questions, he managed to repeat 10 discredited claims about climate change in one short contribution.
His department repeatedly misrepresents science to appease industrial lobbyists. It claimed that its field trials of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees showed that “effects on bees do not occur under normal circumstances.”
Hopelessly contaminated, the study was in fact worthless, which is why it was not submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
Similar distortions surround the department’s refusal to establish meaningful marine reserves, its attempt to cull buzzards on behalf of pheasant shoots, and its determination to allow farmers to start dredging streams again, turning them into featureless gutters.
There’s one consolation: Boyd, in his efforts to establish a tinpot dictatorship, has not yet achieved the control enjoyed by his counterparts in Canada. There, scientists with government grants working on any issue that could affect industrial interests — tar sands, climate change, mining, sewage, salmon farms, water trading — are forbidden to speak freely to the public. They are shadowed by government minders and, when they must present their findings, given scripts to memorize and recite. Dozens of turbulent research programs and institutes have either been cut to the bone or closed altogether.
In Australia, the new government has chosen not to appoint a science minister. Tony Abbott, who once described man-made climate change as “absolute crap,” has already shut down the government’s climate commission and climate change authority.
However, at least Australians are fighting back: the climate commission has been reconvened as a non-governmental organization, funded by donations. In Britain we allowed the government to shut down the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Sustainable Development Commission with scarcely a groan of protest.
British Prime Minister David Cameron’s government claimed that the tiny savings it made were required to reduce the deficit. Yet somehow it manages to fund a lavish range of planet-wrecking programs.
The latest is the Center for Doctoral Training in Oil and Gas, just launched by the Natural Environment Research Council. Its aim is “to support the oil and gas sector” by providing “focused training” in fracking, in exploiting tar deposits and in searching for oil in polar regions. In other words, it is subsidizing fossil fuel companies while promoting climate change. How many people believe this is a good use of public money?
To be reasonable, when a government is manipulating and misrepresenting scientific findings, is to dissent. To be reasonable, when it is helping to destroy human life and the natural world, is to dissent. As Julien Benda argued in La Trahison des Clercs, democracy and civilization depend on intellectuals resisting conformity and power.
A world in which scientists speak only through minders and in which dissent is considered the antithesis of reason is a world shorn of meaningful
democratic choices. You can judge a government by its treatment of inconvenient facts and the people who expose them. This one does not emerge well.
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS