"Allegations that the Government has 'gagged' CSIRO scientists are ludicrous." Julie Bishop, Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training ^(17/02/06). (22 February 2006)

    Whether or not allegations of the gagging of its scientists are or aren't ludicrous, someone or other in authority must have whispered into CSIRO Chief Executive Dr. Geoffrey Garrett's ear that a riposte of some sort was required, and quick, because yesterday the following statement was released by CSIRO.

CSIRO review to ensure an open discussion on science

The Chief Executive of CSIRO, Geoff Garrett, today announced a review of the organisation's role in providing science input into policy development.

 

Dr Garrett said that over the past couple of weeks there had been considerable debate concerning CSIRO and its role in policy, and there had been accusations that scientists were "gagged".

 

"CSIRO does not gag its scientists and this is an issue that the organisation takes very seriously," Dr Garrett said.

 

"The review will grapple with the often complex issues implicit in CSIRO's aim of delivering quality scientific input to policy development - which is one of our major strategic goals."

 

Dr Garrett has asked a small team to take responsibility to facilitate the discussions across the organisation.

 

The members of the team are:

 

* Dr Tony Haymet (Chair) - in his responsibility as head of CSIRO's Science into Policy Team, on secondment from his position as Chief, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research

 

* Dr Jim Peacock, FRS - President of the Australian Academy of Science, and previously Chief of CSIRO Plant Industry
 

* Dr Joanne Daly - Chief, CSIRO Entomology
 

* Dr Ron Ekers, FRS - Federation Fellow and President of the International Astronomical Union, and previously Director of the Australia Telescope National Facility
 

* Dr Bronwyn Harch - Theme Leader, Environmental Informatics, CSIRO Mathematics and Information Sciences
 

* Dr Steve Morton - Group Executive, Sustainable Energy and Environment
 

* Dr John Curran - Manager, Internal Communications, and previously Deputy Chief, CSIRO Entomology

 

* Dr Les Rymer - Policy Adviser, Science into Policy Team

 

"Each of these eminent scientists have careers of leading or working in policy sensitive areas of research and are thus well qualified to undertake this review," Dr Garrett said.

 

"I have asked this team to conduct a series of focus group discussions in the domain of policy development to which we in CSIRO wish to see our science contribute. Currently, there appears to be three main areas where we need to hear views of staff: climate change; energy; and water (including, probably, natural resource management)."

 

Dr Garrett said the team will approach Divisions and Flagships in which such work is proceeding, and invite participation in focus groups to discuss relevant issues, opportunities, roles, responsibilities and practices. The opportunity will also exist for staff operating in other areas (e.g. with an industry focus) to participate.

 

Dr Garrett told staff in an all staff email yesterday that "through quality, open and frank discussion, with those of you working in these domains, our objective is to arrive at a more comprehensive and more widely-shared view as to how we continue serving the Australian community through effective, independent, science-based advice and input to policy development into the future".

 

Dr Garrett said the terms of reference of the review would be determined by the group and he anticipated it would be completed within the next three months.
 

All of this leaves the outside observer somewhat puzzled. The minister tells us that it is ludicrous to claim that the government gags CSIRO scientists, while Dr. Garrett maintains that the organisation "does not gag its scientists."  Which poses a conundrum because there are scientists who are former CSIRO employees who claim they were gagged? muzzled? warned?

And perhaps most cogently, Dr Steve Morton - Group Executive, Sustainable Energy and Environment and a member of the "small team to take responsibility to facilitate the discussions across the organisation," participated in the following exchange with Senator Penny Wong (Labor) at Senate Estimates --  15 February 2006.

EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS & EDUCATION Pages 53-54  Senate—Legislation Wednesday, 15 February 2006

Dr Steve Morton

Senator Penny Wong

Senator WONG—Would it be a correct characterisation of the meeting to say it was a meeting in which irrigators had the opportunity to raise their concerns about CSIRO’s involvement in the Wentworth Group, and the minister was present at that meeting.

 

Dr Morton—Yes.

 

Senator WONG—Did you regard that meeting as one in which CSIRO was put under some pressure from the irrigators for its involvement in the Wentworth Group?

 

Dr Morton—No, I would characterise it differently. The irrigators were expressing their longstanding commitment to CSIRO research, pointing out to us that our research had been incredibly important to them in  the past and pointing out to us that they relied upon our reputation for independence and rigour to be maintained. I thought that was a fair message.

 

Senator WONG—You are quoted in yesterday’s paper saying, ‘Yes, there was some pressure from the minister over Wentworth.’ Is that an accurate quote, Dr Morton?

 

Dr Morton—Not entirely. That is partly a construction of the journalist.

 

Senator WONG—What was the accurate quote?

 

Dr Morton—The journalist mentioned the word ‘pressure’ and I said that, if there was pressure, it was about making sure you are very careful about getting too close to that interesting zone where policy becomes dominant.

 

Senator WONG—And you say that is what you said.

 

Dr Morton—That is what I intended to say. I do not have a recording. But, sorry, what is the point of your question?

 

Senator WONG—I am trying to clarify whether the quote is accurate or whether you said something else.

 

Senator Vanstone—Madam Chair, yet again: the officer was asked whether it was a correct quote and he said no, it was not, he related what he believes he said, and the next question is: ‘So that is what you said?’
 

Senator WONG—No—

 

Senator Vanstone—I am tempted to answer and say: ‘No, he just said that for fun. He thought he’d run you around the kitchen and waste everybody’s time.’ He was asked the question, and it did go to the accuracy of the quote; I give Senator Wong that. He was given the opportunity to clarify it, and he took it. Then he was asked, ‘So you say that is what you said.’

 

Senator WONG—No. I asked him if those were the words or not, and I think he has indicated—

 

Senator Vanstone—Why do you think the officer would have indicated what he thought he said if they were not the words he wanted you to believe he said?

 

Senator WONG—I understand your sensitivity on this issue, Minister.

 

Senator Vanstone—I have no sensitivity on this issue—

Senator Amanda Vanstone

 

Senator WONG—Well, maybe you should.

 

Senator Vanstone—Maybe I should. Thank you for the advice, and I will give serious consideration to that when I get a minute.

 

Senator WONG—I am sure you will.

 

Senator Vanstone—But what I do have a sensitivity about is senators who come in here and consistently, frankly, indulge themselves by berating witnesses. They do so ever so politely, but you can use civil language but still be rude and you can be polite but still berate. Repeatedly asking the same question and rephrasing it is berating officers before the committee. Yes, I have a sensitivity about it. I complain at every committee I sit at whenever it happens.

 

Senator WONG—Dr Morton, did you have something to say?

 

Dr Morton—I am now ready to reply because I have the quotes in front of me.

 

Senator WONG—Thank you.

 

Dr Morton—The quotes are accurate. Yes, Mr McGauran did warn me to think carefully about the Wentworth Group, and I have explained that. I have said to the journalist: Yes, there was some pressure from the minister over Wentworth. That is accurate, in light of what I said. I have explained why that pressure was evident. As I said in the next quote: We had a discussion about the zone beyond which science could give way to policy development. He was concerned—and perhaps rightly—that CSIRO would lose its reputation for independent science. The quotes are accurate, and I think I have explained the context in which they were given.

 

Senator WONG—Thank you, Dr Morton.

Yesterday The President of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS), Tom Spurling said, "if there are perceptions there are problems in CSIRO, it is probably a good idea if the review includes people outside of CSIRO to offer a broader perspective."

Dr Garrett said that may be considered at a later date but for the moment the review would be handled internally.

Just how freely CSIRO personnel will express themselves in "focus groups" when faced with senior CSIRO administrators is debatable. the President of the CSIRO Staff Association, Dr Michael Borgas, says staff are suffering from job insecurity and want to see a broader debate about the whole organisation. To read a transcript of his frank interview on the ABC's AM program click

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1575558.htm