Critical Comment of CSIRO by Australasian Science Evokes Executive Outrage and a Threatened Boycott. (June 2, 2004)

    The July 2002 issue of Australasian Science (AS) contained a ConScience contribution by Max Whitten former Chief of CSIRO's Division of Entomology taking to task Dr. Geoffrey Garrett, CSIRO's Chief Executive Officer for leading the organisation down a path to its demise, "The promise of massive increases in external earnings [for CSIRO] might have landed Garrett the job, but the strategy could shift CSIRO from being a powerhouse for public good research towards just another consulting firm."

    Since then Australasian Science has featured frequent critical assessments of CSIRO, principally by its senior science correspondent, Peter Pockley and AS Editor, Guy Nolch*. So far, Australia's premier scientific research organisation has not publicly rebutted Pockley's or Nolch's criticisms and as far as we are aware no member of CSIRO's executive has requested a right of reply in the magazine's pages. But Dr Pockley's column in the April 2004 issue of AS about the appointment of Donna Staunton as CSIRO's fulltime communications coordinator, "CSIRO in Bed with Tobacco Lobbyist" although eliciting no request for a right of reply provoked an outraged email response by CSIRO's Deputy Chief Executive, Ron Sandland, culminating in

"I am not willing to respond to your requests for information...  The tasteless and innuendo-laden cartoon that appears in your publication is surely the nadir of Australian science journalism. I cannot understand how a journalist whose integrity I have valued could have sanctioned such a scurrilous piece of junk."

Dr Garrett appears to concur with his Deputy emailing Pockley on April 8 following a request to respond to a couple of questions,

"I am copying this to Ron who has been in correspondence with you around these questions. I would imagine that his reply to you of 1 April still applies."   

And after Pockley sent him an email on May 20,

"...[Therefore,] I repeat this request for an interview [With Donna Staunton] in the very near future. I do so in the spirit of the Communications Strategy 2003-2007, which Ms Staunton prepared and was approved by the Board."

Dr Garrett rebuffed him once more on May 24.

"Let me, again, refer to my last response to you, of 8 April...; here I indicated that Ron's email to you of 1 April is clear around this organisation's response to you and your requests for information...

    "Let me reiterate our position very clearly: we do not deem it appropriate to respond to any journalist or any publication that would sink to the brand of journalism so aptly articulated by Ron in his email [of April 1].
   "I am copying this email on to your editor."

There followed four days later an email from Australasian Science Editor,  Guy Nolch to Dr Garrett pointing out that,

"Your decision to stonewall Australasian Science both validates our past criticisms of the media performance of CSIRO management while simultaneously violating CSIRO's new communications strategy of positioning CSIRO's executive team as 'open and transparent leaders'," and backs up Dr Pockley, "Staunton's appointment is an endorsement by CSIRO of the tobacco industry, and signals CSIRO's desire to employ the methods Staunton used to put the interests of the tobacco industry ahead of the interests of public health." and then, "To describe the cartoon as 'tasteless' is an overreaction. Indeed, we even received a call from Ross Kingsland on behalf of Staunton requesting a hard copy of the cartoon to hang on her wall."

Yesterday (June 1) Dr Pockley wrote his reply to Dr Garrett.

"I note that that neither of you [Garrett and Sandland] has cited any specifics in justification of your withdrawal from providing information to me.
    "I maintain my reporting and commentary has been reasonable, substantiated by the evidence and in the public interest. As reporters and editors, our work is displayed and tested openly and, thus far, you have not challenged my items in the public domain.
    "Sadly, these seem to be guiding principles no longer. Blackballing of reporters - by the heads of a public agency and, especially, a national scientific one - is unprecedented and deeply concerning."

To us it seems an extraordinary reaction by the two most senior executives of CSIRO. On at least two previous occasions the Federal Minister for Science, Peter McGauran, has taken issue with articles published in Australasian Science and has been given ample space in which to delineate his rebuttal. For Drs Garrett and Sandland to have taken the stance that they have appears counterproductive and suggests an unfortunate degree of immaturity.

The full correspondence is available.