News & Views item - December 2005

 

 

Should CSIRO Cry on Its Way to the Bank. (December 22, 2005)

The Journal  Nature in one of its December 22 editorials has taken note of the publication of The CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet.

 

Under the heading A recipe for trouble: A prestigious research agency should have thought twice before attaching its name to a diet book. it takes the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) to task with the fully intended pun,

 

 

There's something decidedly unsavoury about using the phrase 'scientifically proven' to sell anything to the public, yet this is writ large on the book's front cover.

 

The editorial writer tells the reader:

    "The diet book in question is by no means ground-breaking. Its high-protein message is not that different from others that have drifted into fashion in the past few years. But this one bears the badge of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

 

    "CSIRO — which runs Australia's main network of government laboratories — has an unusually good public reputation. It is widely perceived as a trusted national institution.

 

    "The benefits of a high-protein diet remain a hot topic of debate among nutritionists. But even some of those who approve of such a diet question whether it should rely as heavily on meat as this one does, given the health risks associated with high meat consumption.

 

    "The diet is... being promoted as being beneficial for everyone, whereas the published research indicates that it is superior to a high-carbohydrate diet only for a subpopulation of overweight women with symptoms of metabolic dysfunction.

 

    "[T]he research behind the book was largely funded by the meat and dairy industries, whose products feature prominently in the diet. Detractors say that this aspect should have been more explicitly recognized, instead of being buried in the book's acknowledgements.

 

    "To be fair, the book was not the idea of the researchers or even CSIRO's management. It came from a wily commercial publisher who spotted an opportunity."

Whether or not the fact that CSIRO was not the instigator and that it receives only royalties from the publication rather than a full measure of the profits absolves it of responsibility is a moot point.

 

In addition to the editorial, Nature has included a news feature by Carina Dennis in which she reports, "The CSIRO stands by its decision to commercialize the research. 'The CSIRO has always published books on its scientific work and put its name to publications, and this is no exception,' says a spokeswoman. 'The decision to publish was in response to many consumers asking for further details of the diet.'"

 

This sequence of events which has followed the publication of the CSIRO total wellbeing diet would be farcical were it not for the tragedy it highlights of the "disfunctionalisation" of Australia's once great research icon. And while considerable criticism for the misdirection of the organisation has been directed toward its CEO, Geoffrey Garrett, it ought to be remembered that not only was he appointed, with much fanfare, by the Coalition government, this year his term of office was extended for an additional three years.

 

The destructive mindset of the federal leadership with regard to the foundations of learning and research in Australia borders on melodrama.