This article should act as a reminder to Mr Poynter that he and his industry do not have dominion over Australian forests and that Joe Citizen is accustomed to industries and their representatives (including sycophantic governments) endeavours to silence critics.

A UWA survey in 2007 of 17 institutions across Australia, found academics had witnessed or experienced cases of suppression by all state, territory and federal governments in the areas of health and the environment.

Affected researchers had their research reports blocked, faced abnormal delays in pursuing or publishing their research, or were directly requested to modify or sanitise their results by a government agency. Some were refused funding.

Then there are peer-reviewed papers describing how industries try to influence the science on environmental reporting, revealing evidence of a systemic problem.

An excerpt from the FAO workshop on Organic Agriculture and Climate Change, conducted in Modena Italy during 2008 advised that:

“The major forestry certification standards and certification schemes are weak and pro-chemical. These standards have evolved largely to suit the industry and their customers. Their environmental credentials are questionable.

“Chemicals used in Australian forestry: 25 herbicides, 9 insecticides, 2 fungicides and seven classes of adjuvants.”

However, Australia’s Forest and Wood Product Research and Development Corporation advise the names of twelve chemicals in the management of plantations:

"Amitrole, Atrazine, Chopyralid, Fluroxypr, Glyphosate, Haloxyfop, Hexazinone, Metosulam, Metsulfuron methyl, Simazine, Sulfometuron methyl, Triclopyr" and also that:

Five of the thirteen major herbicides used can be purchased “off the shelf.”

Listed in this chemical brew are products which are proven to be toxic to freshwater fish and freshwater invertebrates, suspected endocrine disruptors and carcinogens.

Perhaps to further their own interests, forestry industry representatives have criticised the mining industry for felling trees in state forests and national parks to get at the bauxite but just who is profitting from the trees felled by the mining industry?

I guess one could safely assume that the culture in these industries is to be "first in, best dressed" and that alert academics and Joe Citizen should just butt out?

The reality is that the biggest affiliation problem with academia and academics is with corporate interests. Public private partnerships, entrepeneurial academics with patents or ties to for-profit companies, secretive research, funded positions and projects, and academics speaking on behalf of those interests - sometimes in incredibly inaccurate and vitriolic fashion. In some areas of science (look at nano and GE), the quality of the science and the quality of the teaching have been incredibly compromised by academics who are incredibly compromised. And there are academics - Universithy of Melbourne, University of Adelaide for example, who use their positions to advocate for corporate interests, well beyond the scope of their expertise. Open and vigorous debate should always be preferred to censorship, but any fair minded look at the realities of cash strapped universities makes it clear which interests have the upper hands in debates such as forests.

Methinks the Foresters Institute doth protesteth too much. Not only do they try and silence criticism from the academy of the unholy alliance between themselves and industry in Tasmania, but they bleat about the grassroots activist organisation Get Up being able to raise money from the concerned public.

Admittedly, they've had it pretty well all their own way in Tasmania until quite recently, so I guess it's understandable that they'd want to maintain the status quo which privileges them over the public interest.

"Thankfully most thinking people know if an academic gives his opinion it is just that, he or she is not representing the institution nor is it even implied."

However, the other 90% who base their opinions on sound bites do.

SM
One of the things we should not wish for is for academics to live under the same pressure as those who work for corporations or government, in speaking out about matters in the public interest.

Do we really wish that academics work within the same restrictions as public servants and legally prevented from voicing concerns in the public interest - it will be as CJ said, one of the last bastions of free speech down the tubes.

Forestry and industry groups have equal right to put their views which they do with regularity. It is a shame that this privilege is not also granted to employees of some of these corporations without risk of job security and intimidation (in some cases).

Would there have been a furore if the academics been pro-forestry?

Be careful what you wish for.

So what your saying is we must respect Writer and his Shingle and forgive his/her Transgression against us under the notion of Academic Freedom .
Some sort of 'Prefect and Mere Mortal' relationship?