Although centralized control of messaging has been a growing feature of federal governments β indeed, governments in many democracies β nothing in Canada has come close to the attention, time and effort the Harper government puts into managing and manipulating information and image-making.
I recently participated in a panel discussion at the University of Toronto on the career transition from academic research to public service. I really enjoyed the discussion and there were many great questions from the audience. Hereβs just a brief summary of some of the main points I tried to make about the differences between academics and public service.
The major difference Iβve experienced involves a trade-off between control and influence.
The previous prime minister was called Mr. Dithers because Paul Martin could never make up his mind. Stephen Harper, it seems, canβt stop changing his.
In other words, you are starting to matter. From prorogation and ten percenters, to anger over CIDA cuts and changes to the anthem, the grassroots have stirred enough to cause reversals in the governmentβs political designs. In such a light, the ten percenter victory is perhaps more important than we imagine, as citizens begin the slow process of filling up the public space the Harper government has increasingly vacated. Itβs low-level turbulence, to be sure, but itβs a victory nonetheless β even if itβs only ten percent.
Expressing a gold-medal performance in public-sector efficiency by the number 1, the economists scored all other competitor countries as percentages of the first-place finish. With an input rating of 0.75, Canadaβs 12th-place finish meant it spent 25 per cent more money than it needed to spend β that it could have attained the same results by spending only 75 per cent of the money it spent. You could put it another way. The Canadian government wasted one dollar for every four dollars it spent.
Science is not a cold body of facts, but an organized system of inquiry, discovery, evaluation and learning. Science not only welcomes the correction of errors, its key attribute is that it is self-correcting over time. As new research arises, old hypotheses gain or lose support. While this process never stops, generally accepted conclusions do accumulate, based on the overwhelming weight of evidence. The fact and threat of anthropogenic climate change are clearly among those conclusions.
It is time, finally, to learn from our mistakes. While global leaders focused single-mindedly on cutting fossil fuel use by promising to cut carbon emissions, they have failed to invest anywhere enough money into ensuring that alternative technologies are ready to take up the slack. Keep in mind that global energy demand will double by 2050. Based on our current progress, it is clear that alternative technologies will not be ready to play a significant role.
Welcome to the fun house, friends. The 21st century is going to be the most dangerous and the most complicated (and the most exciting and dynamic) century in the history of the human race. The politics of science are going to get more complicated, more confusing and more contentious β even as the political impact of scientific findings looms ever larger in our lives.