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!