“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.