Canada’s top science advisor says years of mockery and skepticism around UFOs have made Canadians reluctant to report unusual aerial sightings.Dr. Mona Nemer, the federal government’s $393,000-a-year science advisor, said in an internal memo that using the term “unidentified aerial phenomenon” instead of “UFO” could help reduce stigma and encourage credible research. “Terminology can help promote greater transparency, credibility and acceptance of research in professional, scientific and public communities,” Nemer wrote in the Report Of The Sky Canada Project, released through Access To Information.“The shift in terminology from UFOs to ‘unidentified aerial phenomenon’ has the potential to reduce the stigma historically associated with UFOs,” said the report. Blacklock's Reporter said it added that accounts of strange sightings “were often met with skepticism and ridicule,” discouraging witnesses from coming forward and “hindering scientific inquiry.”.Nemer launched the Sky Canada Project two years ago to collect and analyze reports of unexplained aerial activity after federal departments abandoned UFO studies in 1995. Her office said seven employees are assigned to the work, though the total cost was not disclosed.The report asked whether extraterrestrial life exists, noting that no proof has been found but many scientists believe it is “only a matter of time.” It also questioned how anyone could conclusively prove that no sightings were alien in origin, concluding that “the absence of an explanation is not proof that phenomena are extraterrestrial.”.The Sky Canada Project recommended creating a centralized bureau, possibly under the Canadian Space Agency, to handle and investigate sightings. The proposed office would “coordinate with scientific and government entities to ensure standardized data collection and analysis,” the report said.In testimony last year before the Commons science committee, Nemer said the purpose of the renewed effort was not to promote belief in extraterrestrials but to approach the topic scientifically. “The reason we have taken this on is not because we believe one way or the other,” she said. “It’s because we believe it’s important to have a scientific approach and transparency in how we assemble the information, precisely to avoid conspiracy theories and so on.”
