GINTA — Time to pick a proper nest for future eggs?

Daniela Ginta writes for The Armchair Mayor on Fridays.

COLUMN — I remember the day. My youngest and I were walking back from school. It was a sunny fall day and the air was fragrant. We talked. He pulled a flyer out of his pocket and told me about the people who visited the school that day. They talked about the environment and saving animals, he said, adding that I would’ve liked that.

If kids want to become Earth Rangers, they can do it too, he said. I almost wanted to interrupt and say, ‘You’ve been one for a long time, you know…’ but instead I listened.

We passed by a crown of orange leaves spread on a lawn; a crow landed next to them, possibly in search of bugs. Or simply charmed by the orange glow.

My son kept on with the story. Someone brought in a fox on a leash and a hawk, he said. Leash and wilderness repel each other, I cannot lie about it. I’ve never been a fan of zoos and wildlife parks, and always thought that trained wild animals had something awfully sad about themselves. Freedom is priceless, period.

My son related what they were told in class. Saving animals is a good goal; there is always more that can be done to help species in trouble. Protecting the bumblebee was one of the projects. Good mission, I thought, more so because the days then were rife with the news of disappearing bees and the possible culprit behind them, the neonicotinoid pesticides.

At home, I looked up the organization and its conservation projects, bumblebees included. One of the main sponsors of the organization was Bayer CropScience, the father of the very chemical that beekeepers had concerns about. I shifted in my seat, feeling somewhat uncomfortable about what I was reading. So if bumblebees were to be saved but chemicals that were potentially deleterious still sprayed, and by the company that is also one of the sponsors… How do you explain that to children?

I wrote and asked about the conflict of interest. A polite, PR-approved reply came back emphasizing the need for money to support a good cause. Right. I guess it’d be fair to say that I’m still waiting for a good reply.

Conflict of interest is not a new thing; nor is it easy to explain. After all, various causes and organizations need money and if money is available from somewhere, then why not? Like fast food giants putting money down for research on juvenile diabetes when money comes from the sugar-laden drinks youth cannot have enough of. Or the pharma companies offering grants to study the possible effects (ill?) of drugs.

I did my best to explain. Lines have to be drawn somewhere; we are lost in a haze without good boundaries. Principles cannot be tweaked with, they simply cannot.

Money for research should come from sources that have no ties and no attachment to results, to ensure objectivity, no matter how unexpected and unconducive to good business the results are. Donations should be made in the interest of supporting a cause and not to show one’s good behavior when people are looking.

That day’s flyer was put aside but the flow of interest did not stop there. Sharks are killed by the hundreds of millions, my youngest would tell you these days if you’d ask him. His advocacy has raised a few eyebrows and caused a few awkward smiles. Children have a right to inquire, just like we have the duty to answer and answer truthfully. We need to raise them knowing that the world is not for sale, and we have to make it so. My sons both have uncomfortable questions to ask.

The recent news of the $500,000 (not even that much after all, if you spread it over 20 years) to be gracefully offered to TRU students by Kinder Morgan, should the pipeline expansion be approved by the National Energy Board, brought back memories of that fall day when my son and I talked about the world.

Such offers do not come out of sheer support of intellectual pursuit, or do they? My incredulity puts me on edge. It looks like Thomson Rivers University is the first post-secondary institution to sign an agreement such as this. Hardly a reason to celebrate if you ask me.

The question is: should an education hub supposed to help form independent, critically thinking professionals lean towards finances that come from sources such as Kinder Morgan? Should communities and schools rely on money that is, at best, a reminder of a compromise we can do without?

Last fall’s events that turned increasingly dramatic on the rainy slopes of Burnaby Mountain saw many citizens stand against Kinder Morgan. There was little concern on the corporation’s part for the well-being of the community and its citizens. The community created a good precedent and that is important.

Yet the issue is far from over. As it stands right now, Kinder Morgan has yet to disclose its emergency response plan for the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Needless to say, it becomes difficult to understand a company’s commitment to help when policies meant to show good faith are missing. That preference for financial help will be given to students who reside along the pipeline corridor is enough to make many even more uncomfortable, and for good reasons.

A university may see some of its free thinking rights put on hold should corporate money come into play. As we all know, what Canada needs at the moment is for scientists to speak freely and unencumbered by any financial binds, and for people to see matters as objectively as possible, with the greater good in mind. That greater good pertaining to our entire population and not to a select few, be they Canadian or international shareholders.

As I finish writing this, a bunker oil spill is being attended to by cleanup crews in Vancouver’s English Bay. Such events are sobering reminders that while everything we do involves risks and compromises are often the way to proceed, the consequences (often more serious than any modeling can predict) are what we are left to deal with.

Money can buy a lot of things, but it cannot buy a better yesterday and it should not attempt to buy the ability and freedom to critically assess and decide on situations that pertain the well-being of a community, small or large.

There is no better way to ensure we can say ‘To the best of our knowledge…’ than doing it. A university is a portal that should help making it happen, just like any education hub is. Which is why they should be kept clear of conflict of interest at any level and allowed to be sacred territory when it comes to freedom of thinking, acting and shaping the world.

Daniela Ginta is a mother, scientist, writer and blogger. She can be reached at daniela.ginta@gmail.com, or through her blog at http://www.thinkofclouds.com.