Senate Committee Inquires into the Office of Chief Scientist and Its Incumbent. (July 6, 2004)

    This past Friday members of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee met to examine the office of the Chief Scientist.

    The terms of reference were to inquire into and report on:

1. the functioning of the Office of the Chief Scientist;

2. potential conflicts of interest arising from the dual role of the Chief Scientist, and

3. the development of criteria for the appointment of the Chief Scientist through
   legislation.

The committee chose to interrogate some dozen individuals who, with one exception, had submitted 7 of the 22 written submissions to the committee. The individual especially invited by the Senators was Professor Seumas Miller.

What prompted this special invitation for an audience with Seumas Miller? As Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Professor of Social Philosophy, Charles Sturt University and Professorial Fellow, Philosophy Department, University of Melbourne, the Senators thought it might be advisable to get the insights of someone whose business it is to understand and define conflicts of interests. And if you think that a thirty minute lecture together with a question and answer session on the topic of conflicting interests can't be riveting, think again. The upshot of Professor Miller's session was the elucidating of the various categories of conflicts of interest and the realisation that in fact the 2-days-per-week Chief Scientist, Dr Robin Batterham, is most certainly subject to conflicts of interest. This is by virtue of the fact that he retains his position as Chief Technologist, Rio Tinto Limited for 3 days per week at a salary in excess of a quarter of a million dollars per annum. Rio Tinto, Ltd. promotes itself as "a world leader in finding, mining and processing the earths mineral resources," which includes large deposits of coal. So for example whenever the Chief Scientist proffers advice on such matters as renewable energy sources, or reduction or containment of C0₂ emissions, conflicts of interest will arise which involve his duties as Chief Technologist to Rio Tinto and his calling as the nation's Chief Scientist. The issue is not that conflicts of interest exist but rather are they properly contained.

Nevertheless, during the hearing the term "firewall" was used by several of the witnesses to describe a barrier purported to be in place to obviate any conflicts of interest that might arise. Just what this firewall consists of appears to be based on a letter submitted to the Department of Science by Rio Tinto to the effect that Dr Batterham does not take part in any financial decisions by Rio Tinto that might constitute subjecting him to a conflict of interest. It was not made clear exactly what this meant, e.g. did it mean only that Dr Batterham did not take direct part in such decisions, or that any of the work he did for Rio Tinto was not influenced in anyway by his work and the knowledge gained as the government's Chief Scientist. And contrariwise was advice given by the Chief Scientist to the government influenced by his association with Rio Tinto in such a way that would be beneficial to the company? Certainly there was nothing in any of the written submissions nor in the testimony given at the hearing that constituted a "smoking gun". On the other hand the situation is such to indicate that Dr. Batterham can't be considered comparable to Caesar's view of the essential character required of his wife.

    Interestingly, the president of the Australian Academy of Science, Dr Jim Peacock, chose to use the phrase  "Chinese Wall"¹ rather than firewall. The reference is an interesting one because in this context it would refer to a Stock Exchange term, i.e. a prohibition against the passing of confidential information from one department of a financial institution to another. But just how this would be managed when, as is the case with Dr Batterham, he is Chief Technologist to a major company in the private sector as well as the government's Chief Scientist is difficult to comprehend. This was sheeted home in December last year when Andrew Fowler of the ABC's 7:30 Report spoke with Dr Batterham. Here is a brief excerpt:

ANDREW FOWLER: But as chief scientist you also signed a document back in the year 2000 with a company called Maxygen and you were representing Rio Tinto then, weren't you?

DR ROBIN BATTERHAM: I did not sign a document as chief scientist with Maxygen. Get your facts right.

ANDREW FOWLER: You signed as a member of Rio Tinto, as an employee of Rio Tinto?

DR ROBIN BATTERHAM: There is no contract that I am aware of between Maxygen and the Australian Government, nor have I had any dealings with that company as chief scientist.

ANDREW FOWLER: But you have as an employee of Rio Tinto?

DR ROBIN BATTERHAM: That would be Rio Tinto business and, as such, is Rio Tinto business.

A significant contribution to the problem is the downgrading of the position of chief scientist to part time, a step taken when the Coalition assumed government. Arguments in favour of having a part-time incumbent centred on the greater ability of such an individual to keep in touch with scientific and technological developments. Arguments against part-time... it would reduce the possibility of conflicts of interest and would allow greater time to be devoted to the Chief Scientist's duties.

As to the question of "the development of criteria for the appointment of the Chief Scientist through legislation" it centres on whether or not the Chief Scientist should hold a government (statutory) position or be in an advisory role and turns on the question of frank and fearless advice. It's a moot point. Currently for example the Chief Scientist is on a fixed term contract in an advisory capacity. However, the terms of the contract are such that he can be sacked for any reason by the Minister for Science, although it is presumed the minister would check with his senior minister who in turn would bring the matter to the attention to the Prime Minister rather than do anything precipitous.

And what does it all come down to in the end?  Who and what the government Chief Scientist is, is dependent on the government of the day.  How influential he is, is dependent on how influential the government wants him to be, and whether we like it or not, to a marked extent a government's political and moral agendas will determine how much credence it will place in the scientific advice it's given by its chosen Chief Scientist. If the current incumbent weren't Robin Batterham he would be someone very similar.

1. Dr Peacock --The fact that he has the two jobs suggests that he might need two offices. It is probably very difficult to keep the Chinese Wall in place all the time in answering queries and so on. That is where we have seen that a full-time job might avoid some of the difficult perceptions.