Bubble Chamber: What control should the state have over its science?

My contribution to The Bubble Chamber this month is this week's debatable:



What control should the state have over its science?

I end with these questions, to which I would love to see responses in the comments section at The Bubble Chamber (or here), by follow-up blog posts or by email:

1. Is the original Munro/Dallimore episode (and the ensuing months long wait for Access to Information) merely a case of tight deadlines and understaffing?
   
   
   1. If so, should the government hire more information and communication officers to expedite the vetting process for media and Access to Information requests?
2. How would this story be different if Dallimore’s research was classified rather than openly published in Nature?
3. Is the control of scientific information by politicians and their staffers new? Troubling? Illegal? Part of an overall policy towards control of information?
   
   
   1. Should Paradis resign or is he the centre of a witch hunt?
4. Given that all the examples cited in the articles involve climate change, what is the message the Canadian government wants to promote?
5. More broadly, what role should science play in politics and politics play in science?
   
   
   1. Is it even possible to separate science and politics?