You say that Conservatives have officially accepted the central tenets of climate change science. Perhaps that is their current ‘official’ position, but Harper himself and many of his previous advisors and close allies have, in the past, publicly denied the ‘reality’ of evidence for climate change. Harper knews that he couldn’t win over centrist voters by exposing their oil-sands friendly underbelly in the last few years. But I think it is pretty clear that the Harper government (and Canada) has become world-known now for being climate-change policy heel-draggers. The reasons are twofold: (i) a large fraction of the party faithful DO NOT believe climate change science (because they don’t actually understand or are generally swayed by evidence) and (ii) they are strongly supported by the ‘pro-oil sands’ lobby. Climate change policy means penalizing the latter and compromising the support from this base.

As for the issue of Kenney and creationism, I think it IS a big issue because it is not JUST one MP. Stockwell Day is a card-carrying young Earth creationist who was against the public schooling of children because it didn’t instill Christian values. Quite a few of the powerful Conservatives belong to the same churches (Christian and Missionary Alliance or Pentecostal) and…although they won’t say anything publicly because of the Harper message control….are also likely to have completely irrational beliefs about evolution (not to mention other scientific issues). That a large number of powerful people in the Conservative government believe in the something scientifically equivalent to phlogiston or faeries in their gardens suggests to me that they are not just scientifically ‘non-literate’ — they actually have no capability for rational reasoning in the modern world. How can we sincerely try to explain the value of science to such people, especially when science (e.g. climate change or environmental research) often puts up pesky barriers to their political agenda?

Finally, as a comment on whether or not the stifling of departments under the Conservative government is an artefact of a hyper-partisan policital environment during a minority government. This is a frankly lame argument that Andrew Coyne in MacCleans advanced. The Conservatives were held in contempt of Parliament for deliberately not providing information to parliament — no other government has been there before. The other parties have vociferously complained about how the Conservatives won’t discuss things and won’t compromise. This is all part of the same pattern of message and information control that is a CORE value of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. The reason they don’t like Stats Canada is because they provide INFORMATION that doesn’t necessarily agree with Con ideology. The reason they stifled Environment Canada is the same reason that Bush did similar things in the US….They don’t want FACTS to get in the way of implementing an ideologically driven agenda. It has NOTHING to do with the minority government.

Or so I claim….

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. Technology is the creation, usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization as means in order to solve a problem or serve some purpose or end. (Thanks Wikipedia )
They often go together, but can exist alone. Metallurgy existed long before we knew anything about metals and their oxidation states, and some areas of mathematics have no applications per se.

Do the conservatives like technology? Of course, it leads to products and services that can be sold and contribute to the economy.

Do they like science? Not sure. They do not need explanations about the world in many areas. They have their beliefs.

They do not want to know why the climate is changing. It is changing, that’s all, and we have to live with it.

They do not think ecology and sustainable development are important, it goes against their simplistic view of the world as a big market.

They do not want to know who is poor, why, and the social consequences. Poor people just have to want and fight hard enough to get out of their condition. No need for a long form census; survival of the fittest, social Darwinism from those who barely believe in the Theory of Evolution.
This could also be an explanation for the very strong bias in the funding of University research for « stars » and super-performers. This will lead the others to do everything they can to perform better, if they have any value. Science needs stability and continuity, but they would not know, because of their lack of scientific literacy. Please don’t be so naive to think that CIHR and NSERC are not on leash

They do not want to know about studies showing that the crime rate is not increasing in Canada, and that a strong repressive system does not correlate with decrease in crime. « Everybody knows insecurity is rising, and we should take action ».

And the list could go on and on.

Why is that so?
Epistemological populism? Maybe, but what if it is just a tool they use to convince people?
Harper has the economic agenda and the political wit of Margaret Thatcher, coupled with the religious blinders of G.W. Bush. The long and documented demonstration of Marci McDonald in « The Armageddon Factor » is quite convincing about that.

In conclusion, they probably like science, as long as it does not contradict their vision of the world.

Anti-intellectual is indeed an important factor that we must not under-estimate. If it was only tactical thing for electoral campaigns, that would be reassuring. But there is something deep here, a dangerous perception —maybe part of the old rural vs urban polarity that many politics are using— and this has inevitably an impact on future policies. Unless some very bright people are able to build bridges, to show them that the “intellectual” is not the enemy.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110505/full/news.2011.266.html

BTW, while things are not particularly rosy here, proposed cuts in Australia would have made us look like fat cats. The resulting uproar has likely put Australian science on stronger footing – by rallying support from the population. We might learn a lesson or two from our antipodean associates.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/cash-cuts-drugs-warning/story-fn6bqphm-1226038160845
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/9224293/health-research-cuts-will-come-at-big-cost/

Yeah, but isn’t the problem that there IS NOT a policy? An absence which, in retrospect, could be partially explained by his personal beliefs, religious or not.

Harper government “supports the science” by publicly endorsing the basic tenets of climate change, but they don’t do anything about it. That’s politics.

You’re perfectly right that no parties has done this a priority issue. But are the conservatives really endorsing the basic tenets of climate change? I don’t remember this point being that clear. Did I miss something?

Will take my newly minted unregistered long gun to the face?

Stunning. Yup, no R&D going on anywhere but Quebec.

Thanks for the nicely detailed round-up. My somewhat more whimsical take is here:
http://occamstypewriter.org/irregulars/2011/05/01/science-policy-and-the-canadian-election-or-maybe-not/

One of my commenters pointed me over this way.

None of the parties is looking towards science to solve problems, plan for the future or delay the demographic avalanche of the aging demographic. We are being led by people with their eyes shut and their fingers crossed.

The Green party needs to give its head a shake. Banning research in what governments with reactionary autocratic tendencies do.

Regulations about how the fruits of research may be deployed are, at least, defensible.

I’d be the first to argue that peer-review is imperfect, especially with very low funding rates, but undermining merit or, worse, redefining merit based on qualitative measures that make even the most liberal social scientist quiver (patient impact?), will result in dumbing down of research. The irony is that there is plenty of very poor science being done right now – largely under the auspices of non peer-reviewed funding sources (such as patient donations). This is a reflection of donors being frustrated when they can’t direct their funds and interested parties being willing to accept the funds under any circumstances. There has been a major shift, largely invisible, of research funding (especially in the healthcare sector) away from peer-review both via cherry-picking by the government and donors/fund-raising. This is a case of not getting what you paid for.

Breakthrough discoveries in science (like the discovery of electricity, invention of the transistor, creation of vaccines) are stifled when the distribution system of research funding is thought to be unfair. When it is effective, the peer review process applies the expertise of the scientific community, the national brain trust, in setting strategy for national investment in science. Scientific peer review is a robust system that encourages and seriously considers high risk and long term research strategies within the constraints of fairness and accountability in the distribution of funds. Canadians should insist on a distribution system for research and development funding which empowers those citizens most prepared to assess the quality, impact and risk of proposed research to set the strategy.

Scientific research investments selected by scientists through effective peer review are strategically superior and less risky than research investments made by politicians motivated by short-term outcomes.

I’m an international relations undergraduate student with an odd interest in everything science policy. What are everyone’s thoughts on science policy formation by political science/ public policy majors and the non-scientific community? Or to be more specific, what do you think we have to bring to the table (if anything at all?). Are there specific areas where people with this type of expertise can aid the scientific community in being heard?

Any replies would be greatly appreciated; finding legitimate online discussions is a rare treat!

More may be gleaned from http://braincanada.ca/