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.