Couldn't agree more. I sent Geoff Garret (CEO of CSIRO) and Senator Carr an email saying pretty much exactly what you have written, when they announced the closures. I wasn't surprised that I didn't a reply.

but often CSIRO is looking east when they should be facing west - look how they were late to climate change.

I have not followed the CSIRO funding follies closely enough to know one way or the other but I wonder whether there has been any pressure on government from the GM industry to move CSIRO out of agricultural research. CSIRO will always be remembered as the ones who abandoned millions of dollars worth of product development after a GM variety of pea they had developed turned out to have an unexpected immune response in mice. You can read about it here:

http://www.csiro.au/news/pssp.html

A quote:

“This work strongly supports the need for case-by-case examination of plants developed using genetic modification and the importance of decision-making based on good science,”

This sort of high quality work and responsible behaviour sets standards for the GM industry that may be inconvenient.

Actually micheal, GM has nothing to do with it.

What we are seeing is the result of 2 factors:
1) Rudd seems to think that research dollars can be better spent elsewhere. He's done it before in Qld. This leaves the CSIRO with a choice, spread the pain or close reserach facilities that don't have a high return on investment or the research is being done by state ag departments.

2) There is now a move into a National Research Strategy with all state government primary industry depts and CSIRO signing on. The purpose of this strategy is to reduce the amount of 'doubled up' effort and research by CSIRO and state research. Hence, while CSIRO is closing the beef research centre in Qld, the QDPI is increasing their investment in beef research, so that they become the leaders in that area (and probably already were). Alternatively, since Qld doesn't grow much barley, the barley breeding program in Qld is being wound down, probably to be increased in another region (maybe SA?). This is happening with nearly all crops research, there's aquite a few changes coming.

A bad day for CSIRO? Yeah. But I don't think that it means the end of the world, or requires a senate enquiry for "going against the interests of humanity at large". But I guess time will tell.

That being said, agricultural research could always use a few more dollars, as it has been gutted in recent years. Especially in universities.

I have always been hesitant about the complaints by the research and other communities complaining about cuts to their area of activity. Very often it is special pleading and complaining about the decisions of the governing Board of the Univerzsity, CSIRO or other insitution. Very often cutback time following a razor gang post election budget gives the Institution a chance to cut down on unproductive activity while blaming Government.

However the issue of the looming the food crisis is indeed one that must be kept high on the research horizon. The issue is not simply one of agriculture but involves almost every aspect of modern society extending from the farm gate to the consumer. In the case of some food staple shortages; the market regulatory system plays as big a part as agricultural practices. Perhaps the arguments about cutback should not be directed at this or that component being closed down but directed at where are the gaps in Australia's research activity on the food chain as a whole?. So far the arguments presented are about resistance to change when it is probably appropriate that change take place.

The Rome meeting was out of touch with reality because this is not the worst food crisis in half a century. It is the worst food crisis ever, indicated for some time now by the increasing cost of fish.

What is missing from debate is reality that entire world ocean fishery food stocks are already seriously and generally devastated. Even billions of seabirds have vanished, not enough fish to feed enough birds to produce further significant guano for agricultural fertilizer. Small fish that seabirds eat are devastated. As for big fish, see:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html

Since 1982 I for one have been endeavouring to alert media and government but it seems politics, greed, jealousy, arrogance, ignorance, cronyism, is all or in part gagging debate and solutions.

In Solomon Islands as I have seen recently, and in the Asia Pacific region as I suspect, dinner plates are covered with rice only and usually no fish. Of course there is impact of world ocean traditional staple food - fish resource, severe and general depletion.

CSIRO science has been politically deprived of direction and resources to reverse present trends. People who think the land will provide for agriculture have no real understanding of malnutrition and disease, trace elements, pestilence, drought, sustainability, viability, population growth, impact of land and food shortages. There is need to regenerate key marine ecosystems and ocean wild fish supply

Given that the CSIRO receives the majority of its funding from the government, it is not surprising that its research tends to take on a political bent. Sad, but not surprising.

what would be nice is if CSIRO's funding was set by an independent body. I think most Australians would agree that the CSIRO is one of our greatest national assets and should not be the plaything of politicians.

On the food issue, the CEO of CSIRO has been quick to talk about the large increases in funding to reserach 'Clean Coal'. That really makes me laugh - divert funding from the research of agriculture into research into the biggest waste of time ever. Clean coal is never going to happen at prices humanity can afford. now there's a political decision if I've ever seen one

I would be more upset if the CSIRO has been doing proper research into food production rather than than just fine tuning the mantra of monoculture, fertilizer and irrigation water. It is not often recognised that the move towards farm amalgamation and the demise of the family farm has resulted in a loss of productivity as large farms are concerned with production efficiency and not total productivity. In the '50s after the 2nd world war in the UK, more food was grown in backyard veggie patches in the newly sub-urbanised war-time fields than those fields yielded during the war. This is but one example of the TLC ("tender loving care") factor. In times of food shortage, we do not need larger farms, GM crops or better fertilizers (apart from compost). Most of the CSIRO's previous research was dominated by agri-business. What would be nice now, though, would be research into drought resistant pasture mixes, smaller animals that can take advantage of reduced quality feed and, more importantly, Australia playing a role in assisting those most in need to grow their own food using permaculture and other intensive small-scale farming methods. Has the CSIRO ever done any research in this area? But of course, we forget that the I in CSIRO stands for "Industrial", which small scale farming ain't.

I agree with Countryboy for the CSIRO's funding to be set by an independent body. The CSIRO is without doubt, one of our greatest national assets and politicians with dubious religious and sectional agendas such as 'clean coal' just muddy the water.

Rudd has let slip in his Q&A debate, that he is a religious conservative - despite describing himself as the 'Garden variety kind of Christian.' Rudd is keen to impose his controversial and deluded values on us all - much as Bush has done with his presidential bans on certain initiatives in stem cell and genetic research.

It's no wonder Rudd quirkishly saluted George W, and recently awarded John W with Australia's highest honour, whilst splurging millions on World Youth Day. Rudd is no friend of science for the people. Our Prime Minister has firmly locked himself into the laughable 'clean coal' faith, despite the dismal failure to find a single suitable geological 'storage site' for liquified CO2 that can be a leakproof cavity on a geological time scale.

The recent TV series on 'Animal Pharm' has demonstrated the capacity of 'religion free' scientific research to deliver GM agricultural products that could revolutionise farming in the next millenium: vitimin A enriched golden rice, cultivated meat proteins, fast growing tuna and featherless chickns for tropical climates. These kinds of innovations are safe and have the best prospect of meeting the world food deficit.

It's a great shame that the CSRIO is not at the leading edge of GM crops that can grow in arid climates, resistant to pests and able to meet the nutritional needs of the worlds starving populations. Rudd seems content to leave GM research to the big corporates that pursue contoversial GM products - often linked to brand name pesticides - that end up costing us and the environment dearly. Sadly, we are yet to see if any worthy science policy differences have been developed by the opposition or if the Greens are prepared to embrace 'good' GM.

"There also is a looming global water crisis for food production, an emerging shortage in prime arable land, colossal rises in the cost of fertiliser and farm inputs, rampant degradation of the world’s farmlands, a 20-year decline in world agricultural science, ..."

A bit off topic, but there's no doubt that nature does it best. In our desire to replicate farming from the UK, settlers to Australia cleared the land and turned them into paddocks for grazing. It turns out that old man saltbush, which was cleared off the land by the settlers, is a hardy plant that can grow in difficult conditions and is nutritious for stock. One answer to making land use more sustainable as well as improving farming outcomes would be to replant saltbush on our farms.