Journal Refutes CSIRO Chief Executive's Claim of No Attempted Censorship of Spash Paper. (December 5, 2009)

In revealing comments by a member of the journal New Political Economy's editorial board made in a letter to Australia's Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, there is a sharp difference of opinion as to how a paper by ecological economist Clive Spash was dealt with by CSIRO's administration. Dr Spash resigned from CSIRO on December 2^nd. He told NatureNews: "I've had enough. My health was suffering. There is only so much bullying and harassment one person can take."

To recap, Dr Spash had been invited to submit a paper on emissions trading to a special issue of the journal. Following internal review it was cleared for submission. In it Dr Spash argues that an ETS would be futile and a tax on carbon would be far more effective. On peer review the paper was accepted by the journal for publication, but CSIRO management then reneged its ok and  informed the journal that it may not publish it as it breached rules preventing organisational staff from commenting on governmental policy. In several public comments CSIRO chief executive, Dr Megan Clark, has stated: "Dr Spash was always encouraged to publish his work. This issue has never been about stifling debate or censorship. The key issues that have been at play are the quality of the science and how it is communicated."

Now in stinging contradiction Professor John O'Neill, who holds the Hallsworth Chair in Political Economy at the University of Manchester, UK and is a member of the New Political Economy editorial board, disagrees. Writing to Senator Carr he says: "When Dr Spash sent us a copy of the suggested changes to the paper, it became clear that the CSIRO is asking not for minor but for major changes in the central arguments of the paper. This is clearly unacceptable to the author. I should add that is also unacceptable to me as the editor of the special issue. It involves interference in our own peer-reviewing procedures that would be incompatible with the academic integrity of the journal... The version as rewritten by the chief executive of the CSIRO and her staff wants him to argue for a weaker position, that any problems with emissions trading are a matter of design."

Professor O'Neill then concludes: "If the chief executive of the CSIRO wants to argue for a different position to that of Dr Clive Spash she can do so by publicly replying to the paper and presenting arguments for the contrary position. What is clearly improper is for her to use her position to insist on changes to the paper which alter its conclusions prior to publication."

Dr Clark has defended her stance saying: "[U]nder our charter, we do not advocate for or against specific government or opposition policies. The CSIRO Charter protects the independence of our science. It also protects CSIRO scientists from being exploited in the political process. My role as chief executive of the CSIRO is to ensure the integrity and independence of our science is maintained. That's not something I am prepared to compromise on."

May we suggest that in the circumstance that sounds rather like "Newspeak".