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.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS