CSIRO needs to be trusted, trustworthy, apolitical and have its long-term strategic research funding provided without political interference
Let me tell you a little of my CSIRO story which is 73 years long. From long before I was born until the day he retired, my father worked as a microbiologist for CSIRO, our nation's national research body, in food research - helping to discover how to preserve foods without microbial spoilage. One of the first words he taught me to spell was b-a-c-t-e-r-i-o-l-o-g-i-s-t! It was his only job, lasting 40 years, and he loved it as he became an international expert in water relations of a range of microorganisms which can make our food inedible and dangerous.
He worked for CSIRO over what we might now call its ‘golden years’ - when the organisation was expanding and yet could afford to send him and his new bride, my mother, overseas just after the Great Depression - to collaborate with international scientists. He spent two years at each of the University of Cambridge (UK) and, just prior to World War II, at the University of Wisconsin (Madison). He then returned to Australia during the war, to continue his ground-breaking work to ensure the microbiological safety of canned foods such as tomatoes and meat for our troops overseas.
My own professional experience with CSIRO included being seconded from my university as a research scientist (half-time) for a few years during which I was a member of a review team of all of CSIRO’s rural research. Later, I was to continue to collaborate with CSIRO research scientists in animal production over a further 13 years. My experiences were mostly a joy but, at times, a frustration.
I was reminded of some of these frustrations on reading the article in the Guardian (Australian edition) by Adam Morton (May 2, 2022) who cites the reflections of Prof David Karoly following his recent retirement from CSIRO’s Climate Systems Hub. In short, I concur with Karoly’s claims and here I will provide a little historical context over the past 30 years or so and suggest the scope of discussion should be far broader than just climate science.
It is true that, over recent decades, CSIRO has been the subject of political interference, especially related to its funding, when its scientists have expressed views not to the liking of a particular government.
In telling this story, I am not suggesting that these problems are unique to CSIRO; in fact, as we have seen in universities and State government science agencies, many are guilty of some of the same sins which are mostly linked to the incredibly competitive nature of funding for research. Apparently, our politicians believe that 3-year competitive funding cycles are the best way for our science agencies to be held to account. Hopefully, after considering lessons learned over past decades, we might be better able to consider how we can improve the provision of trustworthy science for the benefit of all Australians and the planet!
Before we look at solutions, allow me to summarise some of Karoly’s points reported in the Guardian article: he saw deep cuts to important decades-long programs resulting in the loss of critical scientific expertise; he witnessed an increasing focus on the necessity for external funding of research; “public good science has disappeared from CSIRO unless someone else is willing to pay for it”; problems of clashes of science findings with government policies have occurred under the watch of both major political parties but it has become worse over the past decade; the clamp-down on public comments by scientists is due largely to the concerns of CSIRO management about funding being influenced by their political masters; potential conflicts of interest have been brought about by some industry funds; and he seeks to increase public understanding of climate issues.
In 1994, having witnessed some earth shattering changes in my little part of the CSIRO world - due to management decisions - I made a submission to the Australian Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry titled “CSIRO: The Case for Revitalisation. Administration and Funding of Rural Research” (135 pages) which took over 1,600 pages of evidence and held public hearings in six locations around Australia.
The final report provides some wonderful reading for a scientist, as it wholeheartedly supports the points made in the numerous submissions to the inquiry – many of which are quoted in that report.
To whet your appetite for more, I provide here a link to the final Conclusions and Recommendations of the Senate Inquiry and below, a few juicy quotes:
“Of the total of 400 staff retrenched from CSIRO in the past three years, 61% have come from the rural Divisions”. And the rate of loss of scientists is greater than that of the bureaucrats who do not directly carry out any research. In spite of the level of retrenchments of scientists involved in CSIRO’s science, “in the last triennium administrative staff numbers have increased by 7.7%.” Flying in the face of such reductions, “The benefits to Australia’s agricultural economy accruing from rural research are not disputed ...”
The “loss of government scientists is a considerable waste of taxpayer money because there is a minimum of 10 years training at public expense for each scientist .... Thus the community money invested in scientists is enormous and care needs to be taken to preserve trained personnel”. In addition, “... the critical mass necessary for efficient research will be lost in many areas vital to Australia’s agricultural economy.”
“The Committee believes that for Australia to maintain and improve its rural research effort, funding for such research must be made more secure. This could be achieved by ensuring a specific percentage of GDP is allocated to rural research and through substantially increased private research funding from post-farm research beneficiaries.”
Sadly, CSIRO management did not take the advice of the Senate Inquiry which we can see strongly endorsed the views of the scientists. This highlights the dilemma of finding secure funding for strategic research of national importance without short-term political influences.
For a more in-depth consideration of the problems of funding of agricultural research, I invite you to read a paper I wrote for our university’s student magazine, Australian Rural Science Annual, back in 1995 titled “Agricultural Research (and thus Agriculture) is Under Threat” (length warning: 3,300 words). In this paper, I discuss not only the challenges facing agricultural research in CSIRO but also the influence of the media, attitudes to chemicals, the Industry Commission, thoughts from a Boeing executive on research capacity in Australia and the positive benefit: cost ratios of Australian R&D. As I wrote: “If it is true that R&D provides such good returns, then we ought to do more of it - not less”.
I finish my paper with a quote from 1991 - which I feel is quite appropriate to today’s discussion - from the renowned CSIRO scientist, the late JR Philip (foundation chief of CSIRO’s Centre for Environmental Mechanics) who wrote scathingly of the newly emerged practice of managerialism: “The consequences for science of instituting managerialism are saddening to behold. Unnerved scientific administrators, cowed by their management consultants, dismember scientific teams of world stature and set up systems of line management. With rare exceptions, the top rungs are occupied by failed scientists who have abandoned understanding in favour of power, and by grey bureaucrats blissful in their ignorance of what science is about”.
So, it seems that David Karoly’s complaints are reinforced strongly by what I have witnessed over past decades. As my father used to say to us boys, “it is important to know the answers, but it is even more important to know what question(s) to ask”!
And so, I ask: is not the fundamental question, how should our national research agency, CSIRO, be funded? If the organisation had secure funding, the problems both Karoly and I have described would be largely overcome.
Having created such a valuable national resource 96 years ago, surely it is time that our nation recognises that CSIRO’s strategic research for industry and the public good is of vital ongoing importance to the nation.
It follows that, just like defence, its funding should be put on a firm footing such as a designated percentage of national government expenditure, as recommended by the Senate inquiry, with little reliance on arbitrary percentages of income from short-term ‘industry’ funding.
Public trust would be enhanced if any conflicts of interest - brought about by significant industry funding - were avoided.
This would enable scientists to have productive and flourishing 40-year careers, like my father, and help ensure that this national treasure continues to deliver indefinitely for the benefit of the nation and the planet.