The invitation explained the relevance of the debate, “Science and technology are responsible for half our nation’s growth in GDP over the last half century, and have changed every aspect of our lives, our economy, our health, and our environment.”

Kind of makes you wonder why a science debate has yet to become prominent during campaigns – or why organizers are anxious that invitations will be denied.

NY Times reporter Andrew Revkin points out that a lot depends on how many constituents such a debate could sway. It presents a dangerous opportunity that could easily humiliate a candidate; campaign strategists have to determine if its worth the risk.

Meanwhile, top US voter concerns include the economy, health and energy security, all of which are intimately tied with science and technology.

Clearly voters need to get their rear ends and their heads wired together if candidates can pass up this debate.

At the very least, people should demand such a debate for its entertainment value. Think of the ratings! Viewers won’t be able to resist watching their presidential hopefuls duke it out over such sticky and contentious issues.

Urban Critters is published in Saturday editions of the Vancouver Sun. For each column, Read writes a brief profile of an animal found in or near the city. So, using this column, as well as inspiration taken from Amy Hadley’s blog full of random categories, I give you my top ten urban critters: 

Ugliest critter
Just when you thought that mammals and insects couldn’t reproduce, you dig up a most confounding and grotesque beasty. It is hardly a familiar animal, yet it is common across the globe, the mole cricket spends most of its life hiding away underfoot. 

The “I can’t believe its not listed” critter
While Read’s column clearly takes a haphazard approach to deciding which critter will be featured, I am shocked that he has yet to profile the raccoon. When I first moved to the Lower Mainland my house was surrounded by a veritable platoon of raccoons lurking in the expanses of ivy and cedar trees of my back yard. They are a quintessential urban critter, in the same league as the rat, mouse, pigeon and crow.

The critter I wouldn’t want to meet in a dark alley
This critter could also fall under the previous category, as it is no doubt the scariest animal ever to wander onto Vancouver streets. The black bear, however, is really not that dangerous, especially when you have a tranquilizer gun and a trampoline.

Most obscure critter
Read may not have listed the raccoon, or bald eagle, but at least he didn’t overlook the omnipresent fruit fly.

Least likely to see on Urban Critters
Despite the fact that they qualify as by far the most populous organism anywhere, as well as being found inside every human being, I doubt you will be seeing any kind of bacterium profiled by Read. Critics would argue that it is not technically classified as an animal, but hey, even though it is unicellular, I think it deserves some attention.

Best selling critter
If Read was looking to get some front page action, he could do a profile on the inconspicuous, but brazenly named bushtit. Drop that name during an editorial meeting and watch as papers literally fly off the stands the next morning.

Most edible critter
Not too common to the lower mainland, but unavoidable in the Okanagan, quail are juicy little morsels that can easily be trapped in the backyard using the old box and stick trap. I would also suggest the Canada goose for this category, but I wouldn’t eat an animal that feeds on manicured sports fields.

Critter I would like to see most

Rumour has it that great white sharks can sometimes be seen off the coast of Vancouver Island, and boy would I like to see one of these. Too bad they have yet to be reported in English Bay.

Best critter for your mom’s underwear drawer
What better way to exterminate a pest species than to leave it at the mercy of an alarmed relative. Easily found in ponds around the city, bullfrogs are not only slimy and gross, but they can grow to 15cm and have a voracious appetite.

Finally, in honour of Miss Hadley, the “What the #@*%?” urban critter
Dinosaurs may have perished 63 million years ago, but Read could soon be adding them to the list. I never thought dinosaurs would have anything to do with Vancouver, but I guess my imagination is not as active as others.

That concludes my top ten list, if you made it this far, thanks for sticking it out. In case you are wondering, “Why ten?” I am told that top ten lists attract high readership. I hope it works.

Yesterday The Globe and Mail published Dr. Arthur Carty’s response to the cancellation of his post as the national science adviser.

The article read:

Dr. Carty told The Globe and Mail yesterday he decided to retire from the public service after being told his nearly four-year-old position would be phased out.
“I was particularly disappointed about the office disappearing as my hopes had been that I would, as a national science adviser, help make this a permanent institution in the government of Canada at the centre of government as it is in a number of countries,” he said yesterday.

Colonel Hannibal Smith

I won’t be the first to point out that this contradicts earlier statements made by the Conservatives when defending the decision to phase the post out.

But Prentice’s office suggested its critics should check the facts, noting that the government’s decision was in response to a letter sent by Carty in October when he announced his retirement.

Even though Carty wants to avoid politics, his comments indicate insidious intentions.

I am hesitant to make bald allegations about political issues, but the Conservatives appear intent on smothering dissident voices – especially voices that may slow industrial progress. Other examples include their censoring and financially gutting (more) the Ministry of Environment.

Again, it would be interesting to learn what kind of advice Carty was providing.

As much as industrial and economic progress contribute to our quality of life, it cannot be done with reckless abandon. In the interest of future generations – in the interest of sustaining the benefits of that progress – independent and precautionary voices should be taken into consideration.

As such, I question the motives of our current government.

Could this be is an effort to stay the seductive powers of science? Or perhaps it is an attempt to silence opposition to Conservative ambitions…

Either way, the move has upset both politicians and members of the scientific community.

However, the Conservatives are defending their decision, saying that the national science adviser, Dr. Arthur Carty, prompted the decision himself, in a letter announcing his retirement.

They say an adequate replacement to the Office of the National Science Adviser was established in May 2007 with the Canadian Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC).

Perhaps it is too early to condemn the Conservative’s decision, but it should certainly be viewed with heavy scepticism.

For starters, the STIC’s mandate is to “encourage a more competitive Canadian economy and improved quality of life for Canadians through science and technology.” Rather than providing independent advice on scientific issues like the national science adviser, it is meant to make Canada more competitive and successful from an economical standpoint.

Looking at the STIC members, most, if not all of the scientists have a heavy – and lucrative – involvement with industry and / or health research. Meanwhile none of them have an ecological, or environmental background.

It is also significant to note that Carty was originally assigned as a member of the Privy Council Office when his position was created by former PM Paul Martin. But when the Conservatives came into power, he was transferred to Industry Canada and could no longer report directly to Stephen Harper.

It would be worthwhile to learn just what kind of advice Carty was giving to Harper and what Carty makes of these changes. He has yet to publicly comment on the removal of his position.

Normally I am annoyed whenever the Pope makes headlines for stating his points of view, but this time the article hooked me (for one thing, it was in the science section).

“In an age when scientific developments attract and seduce with the possibilities they offer, it’s more important than ever to educate our contemporaries’ consciences so that science does not become the criterion for goodness,” he told scientists.

tangled film

This caught my attention since it related to my cloned meat arguments of past blog posts. It seems the Pope shares my concern that science will be abused by authority.

Science is highly revered in our society; it is believed to speak the truth, it necessitates extreme academia and is poorly understood by most people, including those in power. Ergo, science has power.

Few people are probably more aware of this than the Pope.

As I discussed earlier, scientific evidence – especially evidence limited to human health – should not be the sole factor in determining policy. I believe it undermines scientific principles and abuses the authority of science. It says, ‘here is irrefutable scientific evidence, you can’t argue with science, so accept what we are saying. I don’t care if you run a democracy.’

The Pope and I are for once on the same page, but I still can’t resist pointing out his irony; the Vatican is the world’s best example of using dogma to govern people.

It is always startling to stumble upon something that you have been unconsciously searching for, for a long time. Especially when it turns out to be right in front of your face. Like a great big hot air balloon preparing to float into the sky.

In fact, it seems to have been huffing and puffing and inflating itself right in front of North America’s big face, but has remained largely unnoticed.

I am talking about the precautionary principle (I recommend you google it).

The European Union tried to incorporate the precautionary principle into their constitution, but after the constitution failed, the principle found itself somehow tied up in the legislature. Either way, the EU has adopted it as a foundation for developing many important policies.

The precautionary principle is a bit of a slippery and idealistic concept, but it realizes many faults in how Canada and the US currently develop policy. The genetically modified foods (GMF) and cloned meat debates are perfect examples.

The US approved both GMFs and cloned livestock for their market after scientific assessments of health risks. Europe did the same, and for the most part found the same results. However, they have declined to develop GMFs and, unlike North America, they have a strict labelling policy. Now, they are once again causing problems for Biotech firms as they deliberate on the cloned meat issue.

Europe refuses to ‘cooperate’ because they actually care about their consumers and the environment; on top of assessing health risks, they also take into consideration the rights of consumers, the ethical questions, as well as the complex environmental consequences of these new technologies.

The precautionary principle is a breath of fresh air, it revives some hope and faith in governance. It compels us to learn from our mistakes and to acknowledge the environment as an essential part of a good, stable life.

The fluffy white polar bear, once made famous by Coca Cola, has once again surged in popularity. Pressure is mounting on U.S. and Canadian governments to enlist the species as endangered and grant them exclusive protection.

I, like Eve Savory, wonder, “Do polar bears deserve special protection?”

Significant progress has already been made in protecting polar bears. In 1973 the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears was signed by all the five nations with wild polar bear populations.

Even without much domestic protection, Canadian populations have been relatively stable. Since 1991, polar bears have consistently been listed as “special concern” by COSEWIC, two steps away from being endangered, but only one from “not at risk”.

Of course, current concerns generate from the threat of climate change, but since when were polar bears the only animals threatened by this? More to the point, how does endangered species legislation protect a single (or any) species from climate change?

The new efforts to save the polar bear have all the potential of a tragicomedy. Conservationists try to persuade a reluctant (and equally vain) government to save the endearing polar bear through hollow laws. Meanwhile the entire arctic ecosystem undergoes an extreme makeover and starving polar bears go extinct trying to invade northern hamlets.

Then there is the US government struggling to consolidate the polar bear issue while simultaneously making plans to drill for oil in Alaska.

Don’t get me wrong, climate change is a serious threat to polar bears, but it is beyond the power of COSEWIC and the US Endangered Species Act to control.

The announcement came after a five year “final assessment” made by the FDA and has been accompanied with a storm of controversy. A Washington Post news article cited,

“Moral, religious and ethical concerns . . . have been raised,” the agency [FDA] notes in a document accompanying the report. But the risk assessment is “strictly a science-based evaluation,” it reports, because the agency is not authorized by law to consider those issues.

While the FDA should not be responsible for moral, religious, or ethical concerns, I do find it inconsistent that American policy should be determined by “strictly scientific” evidence. However, what I find most disconcerting is that the scientific evidence considers only one side of a very complex scientific issue.

It is comforting to know that cloned meat is safe for human consumption (especially since it is already present in American markets), but what about the impacts of cloning on industrial agriculture?

Introducing clones at a large scale into our livestock begs many questions that we can’t answer. Foremost in my mind is: how is a monogenetic population going to defend itself against disease? This seems especially relevant given the epidemics that have struck global livestock over the past decade.

There are countless examples of how our use of technology at a large scale leads to environmental disasters – why has the FDA not examined how cloned animals will impact the environment?

An issue as complex and ethically charged as cloning should not be decided on basic health issues – human health is not the be all and end all of how we sustain ourselves, nor is it how we define ourselves culturally. This is an issue that demands more time, debate and consideration.

To learn more about the issues have a look at these blogs:

Labeling
Kosher clones
Clones!? Ewwww!