http://whitepaper.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/consultation/submissions-m-z.html

or

http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/View-Submissions

The issue becomes even more important when those best qualified to comment are the very people are blocked.

Perhaps it is worth asking what percentage of engineers, scientists and managers feel constrained from commenting in their area of expertize?

“You can’t have it both ways. If you want CSIRO scientists to work on environmental problems, they need external funding to do that also.”

Roger – if the CSIRO has made any progress with mitigating environmental problems, it is certainly not in the areas of mining and the mining catastrophes in Australia (and beyond), during the 21st century, lay testament to that. There have been some real shockers!

We need to think beyond the economic benefits and ask why the CSIRO boasts of clients who wear the lepers’ bell in so many countries where allegations against Australia’s mining companies (predominantly CSIRO clients), concerning human rights and environmental abuses, abound.

Irrespective of research funding, is CSIRO’s status quo for the common good or is it in the interests of a few?

yesterday’s article certainly turns the heat back on CSIRO for not behaving consistently in response to their own policy, then intimidating Spash.

However,

I believe CSIRO needs a reality check. I mean let’s face it – we can’t allow our top scientific body to be held captive by the biggest polluters on the planet – the dirty diggers who have incurred the wrath of disaffected citizens in many countries far removed from Australia’s shores.

The lack of transparency by researchers, and the fee-for-consultancy relationship between CSIRO researchers and mining companies disposing of mine waste directly into rivers and oceans means their reports can be seen as far from “independent” particularly when senior principal research scientists involved in these CSIRO studies also have a history as consultants to, or direct employees of the mining industry.

You can’t have it both ways. If you want CSIRO scientists to work on environmental problems, they need external funding to do that also. The only way the organisation can survive is to provide independent, high quality work on a fee for consultancy basis no matter what the subject. Otherwise it becomes a slanging match between proponents of “good” and “bad” science.

A more relevant measure is the breakdown of its own funds CSIRO invests in different research projects – and commercialisation is definitely a factor.

Of course, if increasing research funding was seen as a vote getter, that would be a much better outcome. Harrass your local member.

“…..and who do you think have been the patrons of most of Megan Clark’s career?”

Thank you Danny – I wasn’t aware of the connection. My my… it’s quite an incestuous little consortium.

And gagging Spash continues to intrigue me when the Australian newspaper also reported that:

“He was told in February he could publish the work if it were peer reviewed (which it was.) But in July, CSIRO management said it could not be published after it was cleared for publication.

“This month, he was informed he could not publish it even in his private capacity, because it was “politically sensitive”. Within 24 hours, he also received a letter outlining a list of trivial instances in which he was accused of breaching CSIRO policy, for example not completing a leave form properly.”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26297102-2702,00.html

I believe CSIRO needs a reality check. I mean let’s face it – we can’t allow our top scientific body to be held captive by the biggest polluters on the planet – the dirty diggers who have incurred the wrath of disaffected citizens in many countries far removed from Australia’s shores.

The lack of transparency by researchers, and the fee-for-consultancy relationship between CSIRO researchers and mining companies disposing of mine waste directly into rivers and oceans means their reports can be seen as far from “independent” particularly when senior principal research scientists involved in these CSIRO studies also have a history as consultants to, or direct employees of the mining industry.

Thanks Patrick

Quite simply, I’ve worked for a number of organisations where there was a potential for my views as private citizen to put me at odds with the institution that I worked for. Either because the “institutional” view was different from my own, or because the institution itself would not have wanted to be embroiled in a public debate on an issue that could become politicised.

On the one hand that can be frustrating, because you are constrained from writing about those things about which you have the most expertiese in the public domain. On the other, when you start in such a job you accept there is a tradeoff between contributing to the public good through public service and thus giving air to your views internally. I think many of us in such positions understand that if we want to spend more time directly involved in public debates in contentious areas that we would be better off making that contribution from outside the organisation, so that there is less potential for the views of the individual and the views of the organisation to be blurred.

Whether that is a good state of affairs or not is hard to judge. On the one hand the public potentially misses out on hearing the well considered views of some experts in a particular field. On the other, some self censorship can actually help preserve the independence of those organisations and allow it to pick its public battles more carefully.

From my perspective, the government is better off not getting involved in discussions about what staff in supposedly independent organisations say in the public arena. As others have said, if those independent organisations give voice to a dissenting opinion, either directly (through its own public work) or indirectly (allowing staff to publish elsewhere) then the government can respond if it sees fit with why it disagrees. Often such interventions can be counterproductive anyway because it publicises something that would probably have been ignored otherwise. When it comes to its own public service though, I can see why giving every staff member the green light to publicly criticise government policy would be counterproductive.

From the organisation’s perspective there are other things to take into account. Does it want to be publicly associated with the particular piece of work? Is this issue so politically fraught that the organisation would rather its staff make more nuanced comments in the public arena? Could the said work undermine the organsisation’s work in other areas, either by affecting its independence, funding or credibility?

Think about how this issue is playing out in the media. Google it and you will see the first thing is “emissions trading doesn’t work – CSIRO expert”. Not only is that headline not nuanced at all (nor the article surrounding it), but it runs contra to what official CSIRO publications and staff have said elsewhere.

If I were heading the CSIRO I would be none to happy with how all of this is playing out. I would certainly expect papers being published externally to be vetted internally, so that I and the organisation could assess whether any controversy surrounding the paper was likely to be worthwhile.

I’d apply a public interest test. I think we all benefit from hearing scientists’ opinions. Whether they conform to government policy should be irrelevant. Minister Carr is perfectly entitled to say, “Dr Spash may have his views, but we don’t agree with them.” And then tell us why.

They did that with Garnaut and the sky didn’t fall in.

Many scientists have been uncomfortable with James Hansen expressing his views, especially because some of them go beyond the science. But they are matters that policy makers either are addressing or should address, whether we have the science or not.

I see nothing wrong with that, on the contrary, but I am uncomfortable when he becomes an activist by joining street marches etc.

In following the link provided by John D @ 14, I notice that Spash has only published two journal articles from 2007. He’s only been working for the CSIRO since 2006, so the 2006 ones may have been submitted before he joined.

He seems to have not understood or ignored due procedure which says he should get clearance first.

It’s difficult not having seen the paper, but unless he was being directly partisan the CSIRO should have just reminded him of the procedures and let it be.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

OTOH, he should have put it through internal review before submitting it. It sounds like it was submitted, withdrawn, then reviewed, then blocked according to an interpretation of the comments policy. Of course, this may have happened if events had proceeded according to guidelines.

The comments policy does not have a transparent and independent appeal mechanism. It’s done case by case. I think it should have a formal mechanism, where the reasons for refusal of research output is placed in the public domain.

Frank and fearless?

Mind you, this sounds more like a case of pre-emptive editing – another washup from previous governments where bureaucrats tell the government what they think they’d like to hear (thus handing them the Schultz defence) and keeping shmuck with bad news. If that’s the case then CSIRO management have a case to answer – particularly if they’re meant to be a bastion of scientific independence. If they can bury this, what else might they bury.

Also, if I read what he’s saying is correct, it would still be difficult for the coalition to use this because he’s not arguing against climate change – just the model needed to fix it whereas most of the decent from the Nats is denialism (shrouded in the debate about the ETS).

They should be welcoming this – not trying to hide from it. Makes the govt look as bad as the last lot (can we surprised, then, that they’re sliding in the polls?).

In 2007, one of Australia’s top organic farming experts, Dr Maarten Stapper, was dumped by the CSIRO, amid allegations he was bullied by executive management for criticising genetically modified crops. The CSIRO has worked closely with Monsanto who have been successful in dumping their “doomsday” seeds on Australian soil.

And in 2006, a study, conducted by Boshra Yazahmeidi and Professor D’Arcy Holman of the School of Population Health, at the University of Western Australia, surveyed 302 academics in 17 institutions across Australia, who reported experiencing or witnessing 142 cases of suppression.

Affected researchers had their research reports blocked, faced abnormal delays in pursuing or publishing their research, or were directly requested to modify or sanitise their results by a government agency. Some were refused funding.

According to Professor D’Arcy “about one in ten events related to an environmental health problem – toxic chemicals in the environment, exposure to infection risks, etc.

“A clear-cut observation from the research results is that both the State (or Territory) and Commonwealth levels of Government in Australia have been involved in this. No State or Territory has been immune, and governments of both persuasions have been involved during study period, the past five and a half years.”

Dare I say that the foxes remain in charge of the chicken coop?

However I do think that most public servants are better positioned than politicians or even those working directly in advocacy, in that they more often than not truly are private citizens first and foremost (I would argue that same holds true for higher education sector, too).

I don’t think a hard and fast rule is the answer here; each situation is so unique that it deserves to be considered on its own merits. However, unless Spash is writing about research committed on CSIRO time or behest (i.e. a copyright and intellectual property issue), then I do believe the de facto position should be allowing him to publish.

Though I view the blurring of work and private citizen personas as somewhat inevitable in our current society, I am determined to rage against the dying of this light, because I believe there are many good reasons why the two should be considered discrete entities, both in principle and practice.

I would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this issue LO (as always, ha), not on the merits of his argument, but as someone who has faced this quandry in the arena of public and private persona (and chosen to vociferously separate the two, at least in part due to potential for repercussion). For better or worse, publishing pseudonymously is certainly easier on blogs than in peer-review, and less like to garner skepticism.

Let justice be done though the heavens fall.

The comments reproduced here don’t suggest that Spash did any kind of detailed analysis of all of the options, either from an economic perspective or from the perspective of what would be politically feasible.

While the CPRS as currently proposed is certainly worse than nothing, a properly designed ETS is very probably the most plausible single vehicle as a matter of practice for getting the world reductions in CO2e needed.