Opinion- 28 June 2005

 

This opinion piece by Wendy Parsons, former Deputy Director of CSIRO's National Awareness Program, was first published in the Canberra Times on June 9 and is reprinted here with the author's permission together with a response by Ron Sandland, Deputy Chief Executive, CSIRO, and Ms Parsons reply.

 
THE RECENT decision by CSIRO to gag its scientists is a blow to the institution's 80-year record of scientific free speech in Australia.

Denying the media, public and industry free access to scientific research which is 90 per cent funded by the public, and much of it of high public interest, is also a slap in the face for the Australian community.

The freedom of scientists to speak out and share their knowledge and insights is one of the fundamentals of a modern knowledge-based democracy.

In its latest Policy on Public Comment, tabled in the Senate Estimates last week, CSIRO says its "staff are encouraged to communicate". It then sets down no fewer than seven new prohibitions and restrictions to stop them doing so.

The first is: "No staff, other than those listed. should comment to the media unless they have been granted permission to do so."

It turns out that those authorised are top management and the heads of CSIRO divisions or flagships.

About 1800 other scientists are gagged, under pain of "disciplinary action".

CSIRO is the organisation which has uncovered most of what we know about the continent of Australia - its animals and plants, its landscapes, waters, soils and geology. The free flow of its science has been in no small way responsible for the $90 billion in export income earned today by the agricultural, minerals and energy sectors.

It now seems that this knowledge is to be withheld from Australians, who actually own it, unless a senior CSIRO bureaucrat gives permission.

Under the new rules, a CSIRO agricultural researcher attending a farmers' field day is now prohibited from answering the question of an agricultural reporter at the same event, without first seeking permission from a head office hundreds of kilometres away.

A journalist ringing up, on deadline, for informed comment on a major world scientific event will have to await the decision of the CSIRO censors before they speak to a scientist.

In an on-record comment provided to the Senate Estimates Committee, CSIRO stated, "The Public Comment Policy is simply a revised version of a previous organisational policy that has been in place for a number of years."

Not true! CSIRO scientists have never in the history of the organisation been subject to such restriction, prohibition and censorship as the new policy imposes, under overt threat of punishment.

To describe it as "simply revised" is a fresh sample of the spin which CSIRO's senior management has been frequently charged with dishing out over recent years.

Reversed would be more truthful. Ravaged would be not inappropriate. Recidivist might even be entertained. But not "revised".

The Australian media has also noted, on several occasions, the close links between senior CSIRO communication staff and the tobacco industry.

From the public's standpoint, the most alarming aspect of this is that science carried out in the national interest, with public sanction and public money, now appears subject to the same kind of repression, avoidance of public scrutiny and spin that industry has long used to deny the findings of science.

It is a tragedy that CSIRO, one of the great storehouses of Australia's knowledge of itself, no longer trusts its scientific staff to speak openly about their work without management supervision.

It is perhaps even more of a tragedy that the Senate Estimates, supposedly the public's scrutineer of proper spending, has not asked why the national science agency should choose to pull down the shutters on the nation in such a fashion.

What are the leaders of CSIRO afraid of? Free speech? Openness? Transparency? Accountability? Scientific facts becoming public?

No reason for the change has ever been given.

At one level, it may seem like just another organ of the Commonwealth bureaucracy succumbing to government pressure to shut up.

At another it could just be a futile response by senior managers attempting to "control" an increasing wave of criticism by scientists and others in the national media.

But for Australians, the loss of free access and uncensored comment from the nation's scientists, whether in CSIRO or in universities, is a roadblock to our developing into a science-literate society that is quick to discuss, debate and adopt the best new technologies and scientific ideas.

For the media, it simply eliminates or censors a major source of factual comment and wisdom in the debate about the national future.

 

---

 

Dr. Sandland responds.   

 

CSIRO encourages informed debate

Monday, 13 June 2005

CSIRO does not censor its scientists, nor does it gag them. We have had a public comment policy since at least 1977.

CSIRO's business is scientific research, and it is fundamental to our role and responsibilities for our scientists to talk about the science in which they have expertise.

We want our scientists to talk about their work. Our current policy states, on p2, "CSIRO staff are encouraged to communicate and this policy is designed to facilitate open communication and informed public debate".

Wendy Parsons claims (CT Opinion, June 9, p17) there are major differences between this policy and our previous one. Having worked at CSIRO for more than 30 years, I don't believe that this is so. The 1997 policy that was in place when Wendy Parsons was working in CSIRO said, "Divisional Chiefs are formally accountable for judgments exercised on matters of public comment within their Division". It also says: "if the issue is sensitive or controversial, please inform your chief, program leader or communicator about your intended public comments".

'Our new public policy just articulates this in a different manner. We are not suggesting our scientists seek permission for every phone call or conversation with a journalist.

The permission is more of an overall "OK" for scientists whose work may be of interest to media, and as such is similar to any other large organisation.

The fact is we revised the policy to align it with appropriate standards of governance.

While one senior CSIRO communication staff member worked for the tobacco industry a number of years ago, there are no present or proposed links between CSIRO and the tobacco industry, as Wendy asserts.

Ron Sandland, Deputy Chief Executive, CSIRO

 

---

 

Ms Parsons replies.

 

Selective reading
 

Wednesday, 15 June 2005

Dr Ron Sandland (Canberra Times 13 June) protests that CSIRO scientists have not been censored or gagged by the Organisation's 2004-2006 Policy on Public Comment. 

He asserts “We are not suggesting our scientists seek permission for every phone call or conversation with a journalist”.
 
Yet the Policy clearly states “No staff, other than those listed, should comment to the media unless they have been granted permission to do so.” 

Further, CSIRO advice to staff states that “Staff who breach the Public Comment Policy may be subject to disciplinary action.”
 
So either Dr Sandland is himself advocating a breach of CSIRO policy – and chancing disciplinary action - or perhaps, sensibly, he now recognises that the policy is unworkable, bad for Australia, for science and CSIRO.


Wendy Parsons
Wanniassa