Announcement of New Chief Scientist is Met with Underwhelming Enthusiasm. (March 2, 2006)

Dr Jim Peacock

    The February 28 announcement by the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, of the appointment of Dr Jim Peacock as Australia's new part-time Chief Scientist got at best a luke-warm reception.

The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee Chief Executive Officer John Mullarvey said the Vice-Chancellors were pleased that the position had been filled by a scientist who has made, and will continue to make, a strong contribution to science both nationally and internationally. “Dr Jim Peacock has a very long and distinguished career, and I am sure will serve Australia well in the important position of Chief Scientist. The AVCC is concerned, however, that the position has been appointed on a part-time basis.”

At the beginning of July 2004, Dr Peacock as President of the Australian Academy of Science speaking to the Senate Committee inquiring into the office of Chief Scientist used the phrase "Chinese Wall" in referring to the required separation of the two positions then held by the Chief Scientist Robin Batterham, that is Australia's Chief Scientist, and Rio Tinto's Chief Technologist. The reference was 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.

Dr Peacock told the committee, "The fact that he [Dr Batterham] 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."

Yesterday the ABC's Karen Percy asked Dr Peacock, "Are you confident that you'll be able to avoid some of the controversy levelled against your predecessor, Robin Batterham?"

He replied, "I know there was some perception that Robin Batterham had conflicts of interest because of his association with Rio Tinto. I thought he acted impeccably as Chief Scientist. I certainly don't anticipate any conflicts of interest in having a role as an active scientist in CSIRO as well as the role of Chief Scientist."

Dr Peacock is known as both a researcher and strong, even aggressive, advocate for the use of crops modified through direct genetic manipulation and in the past has exhibited little sympathy for concerns expressed by other scientists, agriculturalists or the general public.

As a single-minded boffin, that may be annoying, but it is understandable. As a Chief Scientist offering critical but unbiased advice to the Australian government it isn't.

And Dr Peacock has developed a reputation for being aggressive to the point of arrogance when dealing with those he considers his inferiors.

It's been suggested that because of Dr Peacock's long and many interactions with the Howard government, he will not be independent in his advice - the innuendo being he will tell them what they will want to be told. But would it be sensible to expect John Howard's government to appoint otherwise.

Dr Batterham was appointed because he was seen to be in the word of Sir Humphrey Appleby - "sound". There is no reason to believe that Dr Peacock's appointment wasn't made similarly. In the nearly four years that Dr Peacock has served as President of the Australian Academy of Science (he retires in May), the number of times he has been even mildly publicly critical of governmental scientific research or higher education policy can be tallied on one hand with fingers left over.