Well written article; I too share Max Whitten's concerns about what has happened to the CSIRO.

The Howard government has a history of railing against "political-correctness" in areas that suit its agenda, but there is growing evidence that the sort of self-censorship and institutional bullying of those who would speak against government policy and Coalition ideology that *is* political-correctness has come to dominate all aspects of the Public Service.

Howard's neo-conservative agenda finds any and all dissent anathema. Senior appointments to government departments and to institutions such as the CSIRO are made on the basis of controlling and stiffling contrary opinions rather than generating a spirit of genuine inquiry, debate, and the seeking of proper consensus.

An excellent article underlining concerns that I have had for years.
Much of the good work previously done by the CSIRO in the building area is now unavailable.
I agree that the root cause is the lust for privatisation of the current government which has produced so many disasters.
Our problem is that the only way to stop them doing this damage appears to be voting them out. They are not interested in listening to reason.
To vote them out we need an opposition which at least presents an appearance of reliability.
We still don't have that.

“Of much greater significance is the CSIRO's emerging knee-jerk responses to criticisms by Graeme Pearman, Fred Prata and Michael Borgas on climate change issues, or Barney Foran, Roger Pech and Hugh Tyndale-Biscoe on ecological sustainability. These are blithely dismissed as ‘disgruntled former staff’ “.

This is of enormous significance. In fact, it is of national-survival significance.

CSIRO used to be at the leading edge of all manner of issues related to environment and sustainability. Now it is being stifled on the very issues that are of the greatest significant to us.

Is it just cost-cutting by Howard that has led CSIRO to have to ‘earn’ a significant portion of its funding from private enterprise and hence have to appease it’s providers, or is it more sinister?

I’m inclined to agree with jimoctec;

“Howard's neo-conservative agenda finds any and all dissent anathema. Senior appointments to government departments and to institutions such as the CSIRO are made on the basis of controlling and stifling contrary opinions rather than generating a spirit of genuine inquiry, debate, and the seeking of proper consensus.”

It is really sinister.

No the answer is not to vote Howard out, because the other half of the brothers-grim will just continue on regardless. Both the incumbents and opposition are afterall inconsolably tied to the short-term interests of big business…. which means continued massive unending growth, taking us directly away from sustainability.

No….. they won’t allow a high-profile national scientific organisation to seriously question that if they can help it.

The CSIRO is too close to the problem.

They are being screwed by Howard's fiscal mania and by a STh African Fuherer.

Solution:
* If Garrett has failed to deliver promised income, he must be released.
* The new Administrator must be someone with a high profile. The Eddie McGuire of Science. If fiscal organisations need flair to operate at a profit and the CSIRO is a fiscal organisation then they should have a leader with public flair.
* Throughout history, scientific breakthroughs have come mainly from the public's imagination. Boffins and scienific establishments merely tag along. When the CSIRO starts believing its own PR about past successes and world ratings then it is doomed to stagnation. Bill Gates Microsoft corporation is a perfect example where an unaffiliated computer nerd turned over establishment thinking on computing, out of his garage. Even Einstein was an outsider till he and a few friends got ideas from a patent office that built on widely held public wonderings of the time about electricity magnetism and time and space. The CSIRO must adapt to harness this PUBLIC imagining by setting up a fully funded public forum where people can discuss scientific issues in a way that guarantees ownership of their ideas and which can force paid scientists to think in a more Gestalt oriented, transcendental manner.
* Korea is the numero uno of public science imagination in the world today. The current stem cell debacle is NOT a failure, it is just the tip of the ice berg of how important science is to the Korean people. Australia needs to look closely to Korea as a model for harnessing public enthusiasm in science. My suggestion is that a suitable Korean scientist could even be offered the top CSIRO job

Continued ...

* In 1972 sports in Australia were languishing with hardly a medal in the Olympic games. Sportsmen and women did not become defeatist and flagellate themselves over this and Government did not abandon its committment. What happened is the AIS was born and substantial funds were injected into support systems for athletes. I propose a similar support system be set up for elite Australian scientists. Called the AISII it would be responsible for research into health, memory and research skills training, for our elite scientists. It would be affiliated with the AIS and use many of the same physical training and diet schedules with an accent on world class mental athleticism. AISII should have the same secrecy and competitiveness about it as the AIS. Australia is in Science to WIN, to foster and harness a natural public curiosity in science and to give elite scientists the support and tools required to EXCEL. In a very competitive and brutal worldwide scientific community, which incidentally is probably cheering at the current CSIRO misfortune, an AISII is essential.
And yes the AIS should teach our scientists how to SLEDGE. It hasn't hurt the prospects of our sports stars. It has a deep rooted psychic connection to the public's BELIEF in what our athletes are trying to achieve. If Arthur Tunstall was still alive he would tell you that it wouldn't do our scientists any harm either. Would it Jana?
AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE, OI OI OI.

And for all the purists out there who are offended by this approach.
Science is not a dusty set of papers or reams of data or cupboards full of specimens. It is like a song. If you can't hear it performed by the best artists and if people can't sing along then it is NOTHING.

A study that CSIRO were doing over three years on genetically modified food that were fed to mice was concluding in its final stages when it was pulled.

This story hit headlines and was buried within 24 hours by media.

The studies of CSIRO were showing that genetically modified food was causing concerns with the health of the lab rat controls.

Rumour has it, it was pulled because its outcomes were concluding devastating effects from consistant consumption and ingestion of genetically modified food.

This scientific news of Australia would cut and taper this industry that has a heavy American drive.

For Canada who have embraced this new agriculture, an inability to turn back time.