Many physicists do not seem to understand environmental or biological sciences or systems.

It's just another fight in the Rights war on reality.

History shows that the countries that fund pure research are generally the world leaders, technologically. As someone who works in the applied science field. I can tell you that governments are hopeless at turning a scientific idea/discovery into a commercial success.

Governments should stick to funding pure research and support commercial R & D through tax breaks.

Just so Cobber, however we just can't make it rain.

We know that all that remains is damn dams and already vastly improved and hugely less expensive desal; and moving water to where it is needed.

And all you need for that are consultant hydrologists, practical engineers, a funding paradigm and the political will! The latter seems to be all that's missing?
Rhrosty.

Bruce - time for some straight talking. The CSIRO's mission has always been subject of debate. It combines pure research (space telescopes) with industry support (sheep and wool research and so on). CSIRO should cut back to theoretical research and the practical stuff should be paid for by industry or those representing users - water authorities. Scientists left to themselves on the practical side will research what interests them, rather than what may be directly useful and (my impression) what pleases vocal activists.

Time to make the organisation accountable.

Cobber the hound "History shows that the countries that fund pure research are generally the world leaders, technologically."
World leaders can afford pure research.. There is no evidence to suggest that research by itself benefited the countries in which the research was done..

Surely the government has some say in what a public servant does? A public servant cannot be "brash" and make decisions that affect all Australians unless that 'brashness' is okayed by an elected representative of the people? The fact that Haigh called this man an uncomplimentary name right at the beginning of his sermon, indicates that he, Haigh, has an axe to grind, and is giving us one of his usual, far-left opinions and, as usual, is not to be taken seriously.

It’s simplistic to say that Australia is a dry continent so more water research is needed. How much (if anything) a government should spend on scientific research, how those funds should be distributed between the many possible research fields and objectives, and what the overall funding strategy should be (like the mix of private and public funds and the associated assignment of intellectual property) are all big issues that Bruce Haigh cheerfully skates over. Well, perhaps not quite ‘skates’. He does reveal his inclinations: whatever funds the current management wants to cut ought to be preserved; whatever field the current management wants to reduce must remain top priority; whatever role the private sector plays is evil.

As a former research manager I wish it was as easy as asserting what’s important and demanding it get more funding. Key factors are not the only attractiveness and importance of the research but how feasible it will be to achieve success. I’m not saying that Larry Marshall has got it right, just that it’s a tough job that Haigh appears not to understand. Certainly the CSIRO Board could make clearer how it sees the distribution of effort between industry, environment, straight scientific discovery, etc. Management decisions could then be judged against that framework

Curmudgeon it not a 100% alignment that why I said generally, but you need to be in the game.
I think the majority of us here would agree that the government is not very good at running businesses. If if wants to run the CSIRO like a business then its not going to go so well. Let private companies do that they do it better.

Pure research however is often something that companies can not fund, but governments can. If fact creating an environment where there is pressure to make a commercial product is were research scientist work best.
The benefits of pure research are often not realized until many years have past, in some areas up to 50.

Isn't it the global warming "research" that is being wound back.

Governments obviously now recognise privately, if not publicly that global warming is a pile of garbage, & is being scammed by a multitude of scientists & industrialists.

It makes nothing but sense to wind back the billions that have been wasted on at best a red herring & at worst a hugely fraudulent con job.

It is unfortunate perhaps that many youngsters have unwittingly aimed for a career in this area, but those who did not quickly see through the "SCIENCE" would have been pretty useless scientists, better off in an other endeavour.

For the long suffering public, who have paid for all this, Hallelujah & praise the lord.

Has old mate, we're discussing land and water and turfing that lot out hard on the heels of our sacked climate scientists, with the objective of it would seem, commercializing the CRSIO? Or limiting such research as allowed to that with a potential commercial upside? And given that is what's happening here?

The jury is still out on that American CEO lead endeavor?

For far too long we've exported our best ideas, undeveloped, and in most cases, for a fraction of their worth when developed; and having done that, follow it with the offshoring of our brightest most capable minds.

Time to reverse most of that, with some good old fashioned American know how and can do!

All we Aussies seem to be good at is selling the farm, and at fire sale prices?
Rhrosty.

It would be nice to see posts on this forum that are not from the same old hacks who have their denial axes to grind.
But I imagine that any new faces here would soon be discouraged by being jumped on by the trolling few.
They know who they are so I will not give them good cyberspace by naming them but if this so called forum is to ever be creditable , then please jump down off your bandwagons and get real.

Robert LePage, pot, kettle, & the shades of black are darker in your corner. No amount of sensible argument has ever got through to you in my experience.

Rhrosty, we Ozzies are good at making things, not bad at designing or inventing things, but we are damn awful at selling things. It is the latter that is required to commercialise concepts.

No number of scientists will ever be much use or help in that area, many are some of the least practical or capable in that area.

It is also a fact that a great deal of our research at universities, & at the CSIRO has been just going through the motions, wasting a huge amount of tax payer funds in the process.

Just like the money we waste in subsidising "THE ARTS", with little worthwhile return, much of our research effort is meaningless make work for the incompetent.

Hopefully cleaning out the labs of the useless may mean more money for worthwhile effort. I doubt it actually, but we can hope

Cannot belive this! It is absoluteluy disgusting! Hate it.