CSIRO's Marine and Atmospheric Research Has Ignored Expert Advice on "Fundamental Research". (February 13, 2012)

The Canberra Times' Science and Environmental reporter Rosslyn Beeby has followed up the matter of CSIRO's Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research sacking of peer-nominated Prince Albert medalist for ocean research Trevor McDougall with the unearthing of several documents.

The 44-page 2010 Science Review of CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research (CMAR) is the result of the  panel of six reviews spending a week with the Division in Hobart. The panel consisted of:

In there overview they were careful to note that while the bulk of the report "necessarily focused on ways the Panel [felt the Division] may still be improved all that follows should be read in the context" of their opening paragraph".

The Mission of CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Division (CMAR) is “to enable Australia to manage its activities in the interest of sustainable national, regional and global earth systems through advancing understanding of atmospheric, climate and marine systems and their interaction with human activities”. This amounts to nothing less than an understanding of all natural systems on earth at a wide range of time and space scales and hence it is a massive challenge. It is also one which has increased enormously in global importance in the light of major global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss.

The Panel is unanimously of the view that CMAR has a team of high quality scientists producing excellent science focused on achieving their mission. The Panel was impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of all the personnel they spoke to from the Chief down to PhD students. CMAR comes across as a Division in good shape to meet the challenges it faces. This is particularly noteworthy considering the fact that the current program structure is only 1-2 years old.

That said, they valued Dr McDougall's research as impressive and world-renowned adding his research had made important contributions to understanding ''world ocean circulation and its chemistry'', and had helped make CSIRO a world leader in this area. Nevertheless Ms Beeby reports that:

But CSIRO said it was ''unlikely'' to increase funding for Dr McDougall's area of ''fundamental research'' and suggested there was already ''a slight imbalance'' to be rectified.

Sources at CSIRO told The Canberra Times there was ''one research scientist working in that area, and that was Dr McDougall, so if there was an imbalance, it was a case of one being one too many''.

The Division reacted to the report with a 39-page response.

The Divisional Chief's preamble is reprinted below:

In addition Ms Beeby reports that The Canberra Times had obtained a letter sent to Professor Carsten Eden in Germany who coordinated the Panel's activities, by CSIRO's environment executive Andrew Johnson.

Dr Johnson defends the agency's decision ''to cease support'' for Dr McDougall's research as arising from CSIRO's changing research priorities.
''I can assure you that it was not taken lightly, or without regard for Dr McDougall's outstanding science,'' he wrote.

Dr Johnson said CSIRO had discussed ''alternative pathways for [Dr McDougall's] work to continue in an organisation whose mission more closely aligns with his aspirations''.

He said the expert panel's report suggested there was a risk of the division's research ''being spread too thin''.

It had also recommended it ''focus on a smaller number of areas in which to further develop the depth of research necessary to lead in the future''.

But according to the panel's report, one of those areas was Dr McDougall's ''fundamental research'' into ocean climate and chemistry.

It states, ''fundamental research is needed to understand circulation processes from the surface to the ocean bottom'' and warns it is ''absolutely crucial'' existing research be maintained and expanded.

Their report also said the division's management structure was confusing to external clients.