Senate Estimates and CSIRO's Feeble Please Explanation Regarding Trevor McDougall's Sacking. (February 16, 2012)

The black farce of the sacking of CSIRO's peer-nominated Prince Albert medalist for ocean research Trevor McDougall by the Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research had the next act played out at Senate Estimates yesterday. Dr Andrew Johnson described by CSIRO as "a leader of environment and sustainability-related research at CSIRO [and] a past Chief of CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems" fronted the senators.

A short sighted management culture?

According to The Canberra Times' Rosslyn Beeby: "In response to questions from Australian Greens' deputy leader, Christine Milne, regarding Dr McDougall's controversial redundancy, Dr Johnson said the organisation had been unable 'to align his interests with our strategic direction' -- and that in light of the rebuke "from some of the world's top climate scientists, who have accused CSIRO of dumping 'unique and pioneering' climate research that 'was pushing the field ahead in a huge range of areas'".

However, with a magnanimity of monumental proportion CSIRO has "retained Dr McDougall as a CSIRO fellow - an unpaid position which allows access to the agency's libraries and computer networks - but made 'a strategic decision' to find a 'way to progress his interests … just not in CSIRO'".

On the other hand Ms Beeby was told by sources within CSIRO that "as a consequence of speaking out, Dr McDougall had a string of research proposals rejected by management review committees, despite gaining support from top international scientists for his work".

On Christmas Eve, The Canberra Times broke the story CSIRO Headliner in July,  Sacked in November. This caused some 160 of the world's top oceans and climate scientists to sign a letter emailed to CSIRO including chief executive Megan Clark as well as officers of the Australian Academy of Science, protesting Dr McDougall's dismissal and citing it as ''an example of what we perceive to be an unwise and short sighted management culture that distances itself from the core science that is the main product of the organisation.'' It warned the dismissal was likely to ''have long-term adverse effects on the ability of CSIRO to recruit and retain the best and brightest young and mid-career scientists''.

In response to further questioning Ms Beeby reports: Dr Johnson played down the importance of Dr McDougall's work, describing it as ''only a very small part'' of CSIRO's marine research. Senator Milne asked why CSIRO had rejected a recommendation by the expert report to appoint a science advisory committee to clear up confusion among executive management over science direction. Dr Johnson said CSIRO disagreed with the recommendation because it already had ''a range of advisory mechanisms''.

So are those 160 signatories to the letter prescient in warning that Dr Johnson and his managerial colleagues are: an unwise and short sighted management culture that distances itself from the core science that is the main product of the organisation [that is likely to] have long-term adverse effects on the ability of CSIRO to recruit and retain the best and brightest young and mid-career scientists?

Has it, from a researcher's viewpoint, truly become "the employer of last resort?"