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.

The "outcomes" from organisations such as CSIRO and ABARE are appallingly transparent. Outcomes are obviously decided prior to any research as outcomes only support government mandates. Anybody reading the research that is attached to the outcome is appalled at how the outcome has very little to do with the research data presented. The data is often misrepresented in such a way as to supposedly vaguely support the outcome. As most only read and report the outcome summary, the outcome is reported widely and assumed to be the outcome of genuine research.
eg. Our Federal government has a mandate to "provide a path to market for GM crops". Anybody that receives Federal funding must not make any announcement that could impede this mandate.
CSIRO is promoting GM crops when in reality they are looking at supporting government mandates and gaining corporate investment into their projects. Individuals within CSIRO are reprimanded for expressing any concern over GM.
ABARE excluded segregation costs and market rejection when estimating a profit for GM crops but that was not mentioned in the outcome. How can any researcher calculate a supposed blanket 5% "benefit" for GM wheat in the outcome summary when the AWB has made it clear in their policy that none of our pool customers want GM wheat and it is too difficult and too expensive to segregate it? There are good reasons why no GM wheat is grown anywhere in the world but of course the truth does not provide the desired outcome to "provide a pathway to market for GM crops".
If CSIRO, the government or ABARE were to be liable for their misinformation we would not mind so much, but they expect farmers to be liable for the decisions made on this misinformation!
The best way to remind institutes of the importance of honesty, transparency and accountability is to hold an enquiry and insist on liability for misleading information.

C.S.I.R.O is one of Australia's longest serving institutions, sadly it has not learnt in the past decade that science has also become political, as demonstrated by the lab rat experiement described above.

We should privatise it, the government has no business funding an organisation who does scientific research for the good of Australia and the world at large, goodness me, what are we coming to. If only those intellegent scientists would realise that telling the truth concerning their research should only be made public if it is a "positive" message, perhaps C.S.I.R.O. could survive if they could be appointed a Liberal Party media spokesperson to give any announcement a "positive" spin.

After all if we sell C.S.I.R.O. what will we have left to sell? We have managed to rid ourselves of the burden of carrying all the profitable government owned concerns, C.S.I.R.O. does not make a profit, and is an independant voice, that may not agree with government policy if they tell the truth. Yes the only way is a Liberal Party spokeperson.

Suebdootoo -
"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."

There was no rumour, no conspiracy, no cover up as you are implying - the results were published and reported in the New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18825274.100.html

This is how science is supposed to work and usually does. We are right to be sceptical about research done where there is an obvious vested interest - that is why scientists use peer review although unfortunately the media are less scrupulous in what they present to the public. Please get your facts straight before spreading rumours that undermine public perception of Australian science. There is a lot of great work being done that is mostly in the public interest. Think about it next time you file a prescription.

KAEP - I agree. Scientists really do need to stand up and be counted instead of staying quietly in the background getting on with things. CSIRO in particular needs a better PR team. Not sure about sledging though as we need to communicate not patronise. I believe that in Western countries in recent times there has been such a huge improvement in living conditions mainly due to technology and innovation that we no longer remember the time before vaccines, cancer treatments, antibiotics, mobile phones, microwaves, computers, insecticides, plastics etc. etc. and do not associate such things with science.

Take the economic rationalist position of Hawke, Keating and Howard and sell, sell, sell....

CSIRO is "sledging" and is being very dominant in politics and even though they are rank amateurs at assessing the fallout from their poor directives, their voice is dominant and is affecting political outcomes.
Of course CSIRO feel their directives and funding is far more important than those that will be negatively impacted by their aims but if CSIRO is going to get into politics, they had better not be so arrogant about ignoring the problems their radical inexperienced proposed outcomes will cause.
Take the GM crops for example. Led by the extreme right ring activist Jim Peacock, CSIRO want the state moratoria on GM lifted based on emotive hype. The reason the state have moratoria on GM canola is because of the state governments role to assess economics and market risk. There does not appear to be any advantage in growing GM canola (the GM companies are refusing to participate in independent performance trials to check this), the costs appear to be far higher (although companies such as Monsanto are refusing to give details of the cost and the contracts involved) and as both GM and non-GM as non-GM growers are expected to market as GM, markets will be lost or will face serious price penalties. A higher cost, little or no benefit and huge market risk does not equate to an economic benefit and if GM is to be grown, the industries that do not want GM should have adequate legal protection to ensure they are not liable for the economic loss GM crops will cause.
It's ignorant to just want a "science based" approach to allowing GM in! Scientists might make far more money from GM so they think economics should be ignored and have the cheek to expect farmers to pay for any economic loss caused by the introduction of GM crops.
Get a life CSIRO, the world does not revolve around scientists!

“Get a life CSIRO, the world does not revolve around scientists!”

What? Who ever said it did, or anything like it?

NonGMFarmer, you seem to be blaming CSIRO for the ills that besiege it. I suggest that it is the government and the consequent imperative for CSIRO to pander to its funding sources that has largely driven its agenda.

You write in your previous post; “The ‘outcomes’ from organisations such as CSIRO and ABARE are appallingly transparent. Outcomes are obviously decided prior to any research as outcomes only support government mandates”.

I’m inclined to agree, to some extent at least. Let’s be fully aware that CSIRO and ABARE are now lackeys of the government, as opposed to the Australia Institute which maintains independence….apparently.

A vigorous and independent scientific organisation is essential. I would have thought that it would be a good political point-scorer with the general populace to restore independence to CSIRO. O hold on…..of course, public opinion is not what counts. Big business, donations, those who control the media, etc…. that’s what counts.

Unfortunately I think we will need an overhaul of democracy in order to ‘unhijack’ institutions such as CSIRO, and our universities. Making public institutions dependent on funding from vested-interest sources is one of the awful antidemocratic momentums in our so-called democracy in recent times, along with the privatisation of public utilities, compulsory preferential voting and a few others.

George Williams suggests that we need a summit of federalism (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4221) I totally agree. Unfortunately I don’t think CSIRO will win back its independence before we undertake such a massive readjustment of our system of governance

Ah Ludwig, the comment I gave was based from experience. When scientists are pushing for governments to ignore important issues such as economics and markets and are pushing for all decisions to be "science based" which is the scientists point of view, that led to the comment: “Get a life CSIRO, the world does not revolve around scientists!”

But you are right, we need to unhijack these institutions or it is no point in having them.

As a farmer, we see our compulsory levies going to GRDC who then allocate these funds to companies such as CSIRO. As this is the minor funding (usually 30-50% on a project) there is a need to attract corporate investment to plant breeding. Corporates are not interested unless they plan on making alot of money off the deal and they ultimately end up owning the intellectual property. As farmers are the ultimate payers of new developments, our costs increase.

GRDC is just seen as the milking cow. If farmers funding is kept separate and if farmers end up owning the intellectual property, we can get R&D working for us rather than working against us. But of course that does not suit the scientific community because we will head research into what will save us money, not what will make them money.

nonGM, I don’t think scientists have been pushing governments to ignore economics and markets. They have been pushing governments to stop worshipping economics and start paying due consideration to science, environment and sustainability. There is far too much emphasis on economic growth and the profit motive. It seems to me that scientists who are pushing governments to take a broader perspective are doing exactly the right thing, and something that is very badly needed in this country.

Decisions should be science-based. This doesn’t mean that they have to be at odds with productivity. Crikey, being science-based simply means being based in good logic and commonsense, when it comes down to it.

“…we will head research into what will save us money, not what will make them money.”

Yes, if farmers had their way that is just what they would do. And CSIRO would be no less independent – it would just have different pressures and incentives.

What we need is a completely independent organisation that is capable of researching the best ways to balance productivity with environmental values, and hence protect future productivity – ie sustainability. As part of this, they would research ways of increasing yields, decreasing costs and improving overall efficiency.

Funding for CSIRO should come out of consolidated revenue, or the tax base from the whole of society. It should not come from corporations, farmers, environmentalists or any other single or combination of sectors. And it should come with no strings attached, except to show by peer-review and public opinion (not political opinion) that they are efficiently working on matters that are for the good of our whole society and environment.

Ludwig - well said.
It seems scientists are always in the wrong whatever they do. After taking time off for family I can't find the enthusiasm to return to science - it just does not seem worth the continuous denegration, poor job security and below average salary. At least the research I have already done has been useful - helping farmers, not that they seem to appreciate the efforts if NonGMfarmer is anything to go by.

I support the scientific research that has been done to improve industry, science, environment and sustainability. It is when the basic wellbeing of the community gets ignored and a wagon is pushed that does not offer improvements.

I don't support scientific research or "science based" decisions that ignore the practical inability to manage this research in the field. The laboratory experiences are quite different to the real world.

Take the GM debate for instance.
There are real problems with consumer rejection. Why then are scientists rejecting the proposal to undertake independent health testing? Surely this would allay consumer fears because just having scientists insisting on saying how safe it is will not allay consumer fears.
There are real problems associated with the inability to segregate. It will be too difficult and too expensive for farmers to keep GM and non-GM separate. The "science based" decisions say that coexistence can occur but the "practical plans" expect the non-GM growers to be responsible for keeping GM out of our produce and to be liable for the economic loss that GM contamination will cause.
The way the "science based" decision has resolved this is to admit that farmers should all sell as GM and we are told that there is no market problem. Wheat was estimated by ABARE to be an advantage but AWB state that no pool customers want GM. Even canola, Canada has gone from a 10yr premium average of $US32.68/tonne over Australian canola and now we are getting up to $US30/tonne premium over Canadian canola. Blind freddy can see that there will be economic loss associated with the introduction of GM.

I don't like seeing our intellectual property we paid for via GRDC being given to our opposition countries on some alliance deal. If farmers pay for research and development, the benefit should come back to farmers. If governments pay, R&D should be for the betterment of the community. If corporates pay for it, naturally they can make money out of it. Farmers need to own the intellectual property we paid for so we do not pay for it again.

NonGMfarmer - I understand your point. I despair that so much money and effort is put into GM technology but so little into educating the general public. Until there is public acceptance it is a complete waste of time and money trying to enforce GM crops. It is unfair on farmers who will have no choice but to carry the financial consequences of a changed market. It is also unfair on consumers who should also be given a choice - preferably an educated one. However the problem is not with scientists as much as poor education, an uneducated media and action groups and some very greedy corporations. It really is no wonder that the public is so cynical - even people I consider to be extremely intelligent seem to think GM equals poison but have no actual basis for their views. It does not help when a recent CSIRO study that indicated health effects is rumoured to have been covered up when it was widely reported as soon as the effects became clear. Independent testing is essential. Scientists do seem to have a problem with realising that there are those that will do whatever it takes to misrepresent them for their own agenda - be it political or financial.

As far as getting a direct return on Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) funded research you need to realise that individual short-term research projects alone cannot make a difference and that collaboration is necessary. This is a far more efficient use of time and resources. At some point commercial operators need to be involved and for this reason surely they should have some say in what and how things are done. Just as farmers should through GRDC. You should really be lobbying GRDC if you believe you are not getting value for money - not bashing the scientists who are not the main problem.

Non GM Farmer,
Oh dear "another" poor old farmer story, does the NFF run courses in whinging, or does it just come natureally, not GM, if we could GM farmers to stop the constant whinging and whineing, what a step forward that would be.

Maybe the next project for the C.S.I.R.O if it survives, should be to geneticly modify farmers, to stop their constant bleating.

Who's whingeing and bashing scientists!?
Oh of course... you think that farmers should be complacent and if a farmer actually stands up and tries to flick the industry parasites off our back, it is called whingeing! I was explaining how ridiculous a lone "science based" approach is when making political decisions and I don't see why we should be subsidising the corporate sector by accepting the liability for economic loss associated with introducing a GM crop we don't want and don't need.
And no, I'm not bashing scientists, the debate is not about scientists abilities, it is about scientists funding and I am not alone in bashing the way funding (except farmers funding) influences outcomes. CSIRO receives GRDC money for some projects so it is relevent to the debate.
Sajo had a whinge about the "continuous denegration, poor job security and below average salary" and whined on implying that I did not appreciate the efforts of scientists. Well where exactly did I mention that? The discussion was about the funding, not the abilities of our scientists.
I realise scientists are very sensitive people and not used to farmers questioning what they are doing or how much we are paying but they need to get over that and actually listen to what the debate is about. There is no need to be so emotive, debate is healthy to expose and fixing the problems.
I , and most other farmers, actually share your disgust at some of the public whingeing that is done by NFF but I would be interested in what triggered your whinge about whingeing.