Nature meddles with politics. Badly.

CBC's eager reporting of the journal Nature lambasting the Conservative government prompted me to read the full editorial in question, which I find extremely disappointing and a total blunder, let alone inappropriately politicized for a journal of Nature's focus and calibre.

The most visible objection one can make on the spot is the fallacious assumed correlation between enthusiasm for climate change doom-peddling by self-proclaimed messiahs and genuine interest for science. Dismissal of unattainable targets (Kyoto) and exploitation of natural resources (oil sands) are the duties of a responsible and accountable government. While emissions from tar sand processing should raise the public's eyebrow Nature's ill-advised conclusion that they are symptomatic of government disregard for science elicits ridicule. Research into cleaner processing is ongoing, and I for one am sure these technologies will be implemented once their technical and economic feasibility is proven to the general market.

Moreover, Nature argues that the Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) will be less able than one person (with a vague mandate) to discharge a duty of valid scientific advice to the Government. The principal motivation of such undeserved criticism of the STIC is its presumed lack of independence, for "several government administrators" have the honour and privilege of membership. What Nature fails to acknowledge, however, is that the appointment of Arthur Carthy by Martin's government was as good as any Liberal boondoggle: a colossal waste of a person's potential coupled to an abjuration of commitment. The composition of the STIC is the best recipe for finding a convergence between scientific, business and political interest, because all these seemingly discordant viewpoints are brought together for the purpose of producing coherent and consensus-based advice. The STIC is a practical alternative to Martin's propaganda stunt.

As an employee of the science, research and development sector I covet funding for projects aimed at advancing human knowledge and Canadian competitive advantages in technology. I fully share Nature's concern over the inability of federal bodies to fund all the grant applications they receive yet I refuse to join in the journal's insinuation that the Conservative government doesn't care for science just because it doesn't shower the sector with taxpayers' money.

As a last objection to Nature's attack I wish to draw everyone's attention to the simple fact that re-routing media enquiries to Environment Canada via Ottawa is a legitimate Government prerogative over its own agency. Freedom of speech and freedom of association have been granted in this country exactly to enable any member of the public to deliver any kind of message to fellow Canadians, thus if members and advisors of Environment Canada feel the Government is not acting in the interests of the country they should find like-minded peers and form an advocacy group in lieu of illicitly exploiting an artificial prominence. Nature's ludicrous pretence that the Government should not exercise its prerogative is nothing short of a flirt with anarchy. Considering the article's tone, however, this divide and rule approach seemingly befits the general editorial board's agenda for a world in disarray where a few organized insiders can determine public policy.

Nature appears to advocate a Government whose eagerness to defer to a special interest group (as climate change apocalyptics are) is equalled by its disregard for due democratic process. Let there be no doubt that the day we base our policies and decisions solely on the whim of the most vocal scientist advocates we will have denuded our democratic institutions of their power.

If white coat power is what Nature's editorial board envisions I seriously worry for the journal's reputation. Science belongs to all parties and to none, and Nature's evident partisanship is for me a source of great disappointment.