Editorial-11 October 2002

An in Depth ABC Analysis of CSIRO Leaves Us Little the Wiser


M
ake it a Crown corporation; float 50% on the ASX (Australian Stock Exchange) and then make them accountable to stockholders, because ultimately they are accountable to the Australian taxpayer now. ...We all know that it can not go on the way it is. That’s why Mr Garrett was brought in to try and change it ... But let’s face it, CSIRO as it is today is not a viable commercial entity and neither will [it] be.

 To paraphrase -- Telstra it. Above is the advice Canadian Dr. Joe Shaw, President of the Australian startup biosensor company Ambri gave when asked by ABC reporter Richard Aedy what ought to be done with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) on the October 5th Science Show which was devoted in its entirety to the tribulations of what was referred to as "an Australian icon and not just within science" by Robin Williams the program's august presenter.
    The Minister for Science, Peter McGauran, didn't reply to Dr. Shaw's suggestion directly but made the sweeping statement to Richard Aedy:

I’ve always found those after-dinner discussions I occasionally have with economists and some business people to be shallow and ill thought through. I have yet to see a cohesive, let alone convincing argument for hiving off parts, large or small of CSIRO. It’s an urban myth that we can get better return for our investment by CSIRO in specialist different component parts.

So far as could be judged from the various statements made by Mr. McGauran in the course of the program he wasn't giving anything away as to what the Government has in mind for its $600 million per annum budgetary line item. Up until last month CSIRO had been given a specific target as to the amount of extra governmental funds it had to find to meet its expenses, 30%. That's now been withdrawn.

Peter McGauran: It had done its job. Ten years ago it was introduced so that CSIRO must earn 30% of its funding from external sources. It built a culture of industry linkages looking outward, having regard to the needs of industry, but now it’s actually counterproductive in that it has an emphasis too much on short term research and they chase often industry funds...

However, CSIRO's Chief Executive, Dr. Geoff Garrett, appointed not quite two years ago, has set a goal of 50% external funding for the organisation by 2006. How is it going to be achieved when Mr. McGauran has expressed the view "now [the 30% target is] actually counterproductive", and Max Whitten, Former Chief of CSIRO's Division of Entomology has pointed out:

Over the last 10 years [the budget's] gone down about 25%. You see a loss of senior research scientists and them being replaced by post doctoral fellows. If you look at other indicators like private sector investment, you see that’s gone down 10% during the period of the present government. Publications are down 15%. Post grad students are down nearly 20%, and so on. In a lot of these vital statistics you see CSIRO not in a position to perform in the way that it has in the past. On top of that you have a policy by the Chief Executive to increase external revenue to 50% ...My feeling is that with the shrinkage of appropriation, the increased pressure for external funds, CSIRO will not be able to do the public good research that it has done in the past.

In fact it's difficult to see how the organisation would appear to be a credible applied research facility for hire let alone an organisation also charged with doing research for the public good, i.e. research that can’t be sold but is seen as vital for the nation's welfare. That said, Dr. Garrett has introduced what are referred to as "Flagship Programs", currently seven of them, which are to be cross divisional interdisciplinary assaults on matters of major concern to the nation (priorities). They are covered on a single web page under the heading "What is a Flagship Program (BHAG)?" and are listed as:

CSIRO Flagship Programs

Chair, CSIRO Flagship Programs
Dr Graham Harris

Energy Transformed
Dr John Wright

Revitalising our Landscape (Healthy Country)
Dr Chris Moran

Preventative Health (P-Health)
Dr Richard Head  

Australia Leading the Light Metals Age
Dr Raj Rajakumar 

e-Australia
Dr Warren King  

Wealth from Australia's Oceans
Dr Nan Bray  

Agrifood Top 5
Dr Allan Green

[BHAG = Big Hairy Audacious Goal]
But how tangible or intangible are the "Flagship Programs". True enough there are contacts listed for each of the programs but Dr. Garrett is hardly being up front in detailing just what the phrases mean and what will be the instruments for realising what are to say the least vaguely described goals. Richard Aedy's interview with Dr. Garrett didn't disperse the fog and it's a matter of marked and immediate concern to the organisation. CSIRO's triennial budget allocation is coming up for discussion and how kindly Federal Cabinet will take to Dr, Garrett's continued hand waving should trouble the Minister as well as the CSIRO Board. Here, for example, are some of his replies to Richard Aedy:

Richard Aedy: ...what is CSIRO for?

Dr. Garrett: CSIRO’s about delivering great science and innovative solutions for the benefit of our society, for the environment, for our stakeholders, for the community. It’s there to make a difference to the nation; to help Australia meet its aspirations into the future as a winning nation, as a healthy nation, as a vibrant nation; to harness the power of science and technology, to make that happen.

Richard Aedy: But are you a public good researcher? Are you a contract research organisation? Are you interested in generating spin-offs and getting involved in commercial opportunities? Are you there to solve problems for clients?

Geoff Garrett: All of the above. There are three main domains of business if you like, that CSIRO’s involved with. We’re involved with key strategic research that makes a difference in the short, medium and long term to our nation. We have a powerhouse of expertise and infrastructure and facilities to help solve problems and meet opportunities for industry, state agencies and other players local and internationally...
    We want to think differently about our whole approach to the impact and relevance we make. They are stretching goals. Our last year, our last financial year we’ve grown our external revenue by in excess of 11%. In the previous three financial years it averaged .3% per annum.

Richard Aedy: But it has to get up to 20 or thereabouts, compounding, for you to get half a billion a year though.

Geoff Garrett: If you look at the way we’ve analysed this, we believe that we will be able to persuade government to contribute to our overall growth strategy. I think your projections are such that they are stretch targets as I’ve said, but we’re putting new things in place to make that happen.

It wasn't revealed whether or not Richard Aedy had been shown the analyses or told what "new things" are being put in place. The listener was certainly left uninformed. We can hope that the Minister and the Board have been told.

Quite apart from the hand waving, it's that "powerhouse of expertise" that Dr. Whitten believes is being eroded to a point of near disintegration. Dr. Garrett waxed enthusiastic about the platoon of outside managerial expertise he has been recruiting but Dr. Whitten's concern about the, "...loss of senior research scientists and them being replaced by post doctoral fellows" is left unaddressed.
    And then there is an allusion to an element of fear pervading the staff:

Richard Aedy: One thing we haven’t been able to bring you is dissent from inside the organisation. I’ve spoken to half a dozen researchers, some very senior, with real concerns about CSIRO’s strategy and how it’s being implemented. But none would consent to being recorded or even quoted.

What this says about the morale of the personnel and the managerial approach by Dr. Garrett ought to be disquieting to all concerned but neither Dr. Garrett, Mr. McGauran, nor the Chairman of the  CSIRO Board, Catherine Livingstone showed any signs that any corrective measures were warranted.

Above all else what came through during the program was the almost terrifying vagueness if not elusiveness exhibited by Graham Harris, Chair of the Flagship Programs as well as Dr. Garrett. Note the following segment; the only quote from Dr. Harris during the broadcast.

Graham Harris: It’s important to point out that [the Flagship Programs] remain if you like, options almost in an investment point of view. If we can’t get the full 'Team Australia' approach, if we can’t get really broadly national buy-in, then some of these things may not proceed. But in the broad we’ve got Preventative Health and Light Metals, which are the two which are sort of coming forward now fairly quickly. Fairly close behind them we’ve got Agrifood - we’re trying to get Australia into the top five food exporters in the world. We’ve got Energy and we’ve got what we call e-Australia, which is sort of the IT services - another focus. Those three will come on stream over the next few months, and then we’ve got two more. One which got called Healthy Country, but it’s really about the health of the landscape and the environment so it’s about water and salinity and landscapes and so on. And one about oceans. Those two are sort of further down the track at this stage. So those are the seven themes that we’re beavering away and developing partnerships.

Keep in mind the Flagship Programs are earmarked for 40% of CSIRO funding. As Labor Senator Kim Carr might say, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars per annum acquired from the tax paying public.

The matter of how Dr. Garrett and his senior managerial group are dealing with CSIRO funds has been a matter of considerable interest if not preoccupation to Senator Carr, Labor's shadow minister for science.

Richard Aedy: A few months ago Senator Carr asked 50 questions about the CSIRO through the Senate Estimates Committee. He should have had his answers by July 25th. So, how many has he received?

Kim Carr: Well, we’ve got none and that’s the problem. This is an organisation I think having trouble meeting its political responsibilities, parliamentary responsibilities for accountability. I ask simple questions: please tell me what is it costing you to raise the external revenue that you’re claiming you’re raising. ...I want to know how they’re managing their external consultancies. ...I want to know why it is that you’re entering into these property arrangements, which seem to be at such cost to the organisation. ...they're at least two months overdue to respond to these basic questions which highlights I think fundamental management issues.

At this point it doesn't appear that asking, "Does CSIRO's top management really know what it's doing?" is unwarranted. And that is really the question that Senator Carr is asking. And it's the question that the Minister for Science should be asking as well as the CSIRO Board. But does anyone outside the organisation care that much? If CSIRO's public funding in the forthcoming triennium were halved would there be public protest marches? Would parliamentary backbenchers remonstrate en masse as they did about the petrol levy?
    Over the past decade first Labor and then the Coalition have reduced funding to the organisation by 25%. During the same period, and especially during the tenure of the present government, there has been increasing pressure brought to bear on the organisation to remove itself from basic research completely, reduce its commitment to strategic research and to increase its concentration on applied research.
    Concurrently, funding for basic research (now almost exclusively done within our universities) has been reduced 16% since 1996. Our population of university staff in the enabling sciences has dwindled to the point where they're becoming an endangered species. What then is the real commitment of our government to R&D; not just in terms of financial resources or percentage of GDP which is shocking enough but also with regard to whom it charges to be responsible for forwarding it, and to whom it chooses to listen.

Australia's higher education system, our research and development capability (including CSIRO) are not at a crossroads, but rather an event horizon and all the obfuscation by those who have the responsibility for resourcing them doesn't change that. Shortly, the Science Minister's advisory committee on national research priorities will make its recommendations, their advice will be an indication as to whether or not they grasp the magnitude of the problems facing those charged with the future of Australian research and innovation.

 

Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web