Dr Geoff Garrett was appointed Chief Executive of CSIRO in January 2001 on a five year contract. Brought in by the government of John Howard to increase the organisation's immediate commercial relevance to the private sector and to reduce its cost to the federal government whether Garrett stays or goes will depend on how the federal cabinet led by Mr Howard, the Treasurer, Peter Costello, and to a lesser extent the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, evaluate his performance on those criteria.

There should be no mistake -- the value placed by this government on the relevance of CSIRO's scientific research for the public good in the medium term, let alone further along is of distant secondary importance.

In July 2002 -- eighteen months after Geoff Garrett was appointed -- a former Chief of CSIRO's Division of Entomology, Max Whitten, in Australasian Science maintained that CSIRO's leadership was in crisis and slammed Garrett for his approach, but summarised what made him of interest to Australia's Coalition Government. "Garrett hails from South Africa, with good credentials as the boss of CSIR ­ CSIRO's equivalent, but minus agriculture. To survive in the changed political and economic environment there, CSIR ramped up its external earnings under Garrett, partly by reinventing itself as a consulting firm."

Dr Whitten went on to observe, "In a bid to increase external earnings, CSIRO researchers now seek solutions that have more to do with corporate survival than the national interest... The promise of massive increases in external earnings might have landed Garrett the job, but the strategy could shift CSIRO from being a powerhouse for public good research towards just another consulting firm."

Over 2½ years have passed and in the interim there have been a number of changes within the organisation and Dr Garrett's contract has nine months to go; whether or not it is renewed will need to be decided within the next several months. And it is fair to ask in the four years that he has been Chief Executive just what has been accomplished. Senate Estimates will have its next crack at the governmental organisations such as CSIRO in June, and it will be their last go before the Coalition takes control of the Senate. Perhaps the Senator from Victoria, Kim Carr will ask Dr Garrett what has CSIRO delivered to the welfare of Australia during his tenure as CEO. And perhaps he will allow him advance notice so that Dr Garrett can produce a reply that will avoid the sort of obfuscatory replies which have so defined many of his public utterances.

Yesterday the Australian Financial Review quoted Charley Krebs, a former Chief of CSIRO's Division of Wildlife saying, "In my old division... the whole place is just out chasing money. Nobody is doing any science any more. It is appalling to watch it happening."

[Krebs quickly regretted giving AFR the quote, today sending an email to CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems staff where he currently is listed as an Honorary Fellow.

     I regret the quotation given in the Australian Financial Review on Monday. The problems listed are real, and senior management are clearly working to try to relieve them. It was clearly over the top to be quoted as "nobody is doing any science any more" when there are many in this Division as elsewhere in CSIRO doing excellent science. I would reword this to say that "we need to solve these problems so that more excellent science can be achieved".
    I apologise to any who were offended by the hyperbole quoted, and perhaps the bottom line is to be careful in dealing with the press.

Charles Krebs]

Nevertheless the situation he refers to, hyperbolically or not, has been markedly exacerbated during the Garrett stewardship. Whether or not senior management are working effectively to try to relieve it remains to be seen.

Last financial year CSIRO's total revenue was $889 million of which $320 million is listed as external, though a significant amount came from other governmental entities, while $569 million was contributed directly from government revenue, most from taxes. What part of the $569 million was spent on research that would be considered research for the public good, and what part was spent in chasing the corporate dollar? And when doing the sums did a dollar spent in chasing private sector funds earn a dollar, more than a dollar (how much) or less than a dollar.

'My other piece of advice, Copperfield,' said Mr. Micawber, 'you know. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and - and in short you are for ever floored. As I am!'

Leaving aside that CSIRO conducts no basic research while the universities feel ever more pressure to undertake ever less fundamental research (which some members of the government refer to as "blue sky research", the phrase being uttered as a pejorative), what is the overall quality of its strategic and applied research on an objective assessment? Not so long ago the Vice-Chancellor of ANU, Ian Chubb, put his institution on the line asking the academic world just how good is ANU and how good is its research. And he got some pretty straight answers. Are Dr Garrett and his governmental masters courageous enough to do the same and to do so without stacking the deck?

And all the while there continues to be maintained a running grim joke encompassing hyperbole, media spin, charge and counter charge which seems to be descending to the level of a school yard brawl.

It could be dismissed with scarce notice did it not involve the doyen of Australia's science writers, the head and deputy head of the government's senior scientific research organisation and its Executive Director of Communications, i.e. Dr Peter Pockley, Australasian Science's senior science writer, vs Drs Geoff Garrett, Ron Sandland and Ms Donna Staunton. The stoush has gone on now for a couple of years, with Pockley asking to be told just what is it that CSIRO is accomplishing (just the facts please), pointing out its deficiencies culminating in its disastrous commercial Australian Magnesium venture which cost $1 billion in federal government funds for openers, and finally accusing the organisation, as directed by Garrett, of hiring at just on 9 times Australia's per capita income Ms Staunton whom he assesses as grossly under qualified for the position of Executive Director of Communications. All this resulted in Dr Pockley being told that CSIRO collectively would no longer communicate with him. Pockley in turn made sure that his colleagues were made well aware of the CSIRO blackban.

If this humourless farce leads to a wider understanding of just how badly CSIRO's management, Board and Minister have lost their way it will have served a useful purpose, but it is doubtful that it will lead to a significant alternation in the federal government's attitude toward the organisation. It is not unlikely that Dr. Garrett's contract will be renewed, but in the event that it is not, it's an odds on bet that any new appointment as Chief Executive will be a Garrett clone.

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web