Reflections on CSIRO Larry Marshall's address to National Press Club (July 2022)
In his recent (July 27, 2022) address to the National Press Club, Dr Larry Marshall, the CEO of CSIRO, presented his case for the national research body with the help of an interesting thematic analogy of surfing the waves whilst avoiding being dumped. His chief mantra was for us to face the ‘uncomfortable truths’ behind the seven megatrends uncovered by CSIRO, to recognise the ‘sea of opportunities’ they present, and to boldly innovate. Our future depends on us understanding the ‘waves of disruption’ that are coming our way.
[A word of caution to myself: when I hear science presented as an analogy, I ask my antennae whether the scientific message might be being ‘sold’].
My concerns about Marshall’s well-delivered ‘sales pitch’ include trust in science, obstacles to collaboration, the importance of job security and the need for our national research agency to be free from commercial conflicts of interest.
Unsurprisingly, the first megatrend he mentions concerns responses to our changing climate. I fear it is not sufficient for our national science agency to tell us to focus on adapting in terms of ‘health, infrastructure and settlement patterns”. The goal posts which global leaders set down of 350 ppm CO2 or less than 1.5oC warming are inexorably being exceeded. Should we just accept his declaration that there will be more than 1400 heat related deaths in Perth by 2050? Adaptation is a coping mechanism - not a solution.
How can we build resilience to drought at a pace that will keep up with the rate of desertification of our continent - Earth’s driest? How will we ‘protect our water resources’? There is no mention of a sufficiently bold agenda which will see us be able to reverse global warming - so that all life will have a liveable planet to support it.
Marshall described his big dream, 20 years into the future, when: our beaches will have retreated inland behind some of our current houses; many species will no longer exist; etc. Just over the horizon, we will have ocean wind farms powering the electrolysis of sea water to generate hydrogen in such a way that all energy will be ‘renewable’. We will be eating plant-based protein, we will be almost at net zero emissions, batteries will be made here, air quality will be better (due in part to electric vehicles) and there will be no more plastic waste. Our ports will be shipping out refined rare earths and heavy industry will be producing ‘green steel’.
To my simple mind, parts of this dream are in fact a nightmare! Is he saying that CSIRO accepts the inevitability of oceans rising and species diversity crashing, and that batteries and wind power are a complete solution? Shouldn’t we take a precautionary approach? (In an earlier blog, I expressed my concerns about the almost universal view that wind energy is ‘free’).
And if, as he declares, Australia already has all these technologies today, one might ask, what then should CSIRO be researching beyond his 20-year dream? Why shouldn’t Australia’s national research agency be working towards bold long-term goals beyond what we know today – such as reversing humans’ impact on global warming?
Marshall gives a positive perspective on hydrogen power – but isn’t that already getting serious attention and investment from billionaire Twiggy Forest’s Fortescue Metals Group. Not only did Twiggy get to spruik his ideas via the national broadcaster in his Boyer Lectures, but I ask does his corporation warrant a significant subsidy in the form of assistance from Australia’s publicly funded national science agency?
In relation to Marshall’s claim that we now have increased trust in science, may I express concerns? His messages were laced with an over-abundance of positive ‘spin’. I expect our nation’s premier publicly funded science agency not to oversell itself to garner more support for the agency. If it does, it risks generating less trust in the agency, not more.
He correctly points out that, historically, Australia has lacked the courage to back ourselves. But, he says that the power of science has been demonstrated in solving the Covid-19 crisis. As a physicist by training, I am guessing that Marshall is most familiar with research which is precise, predictable and challenging for mere mortals to comprehend – like the physics of lasers and planetary movements. And so, it is not surprising that the public does trust science as it applies to telescopes, lasers and the innovative mRNA vaccines produced recently in record time using novel scientific methods.
But much research - and especially that focused on complex issues such as global ecological systems which interact across our animals, plants, soil, landscapes, waterways, oceans, and air – is not readily distilled into precise and predictable equations. And it is here, I suggest, that the public has much less trust in science and scientists. In fact, there are many alternative views, even anti-science views, on how the world works resulting in widespread mistrust across many science disciplines across the world. This is especially true of those without any significant training in science. This lack of trust in science is a major problem for all species on this planet!
And so, I suggest, it is vitally important that our national science agency should focus primarily on its science and its scientists being trusted voices with an overriding commitment to studying and reporting objective facts about our world. CSIRO could, for example, decide to publish all its science outside publishing paywalls making it accessible to all, for the benefit of all.
Marshall challenges us: “Imagine if every Australian scientist worked collaboratively in a mission-directed way – we could obliterate our innovation problem”. But the world we live in, including the research world, is driven primarily by money and the competition for it. Australians need to understand that the competition for research funding is extremely intense – not only for CSIRO scientists but also for the most prestigious grants for universities, such as the Australian Research Council grants. When there is intense competition for limited research funds, this works against collaboration.
If, as Marshall seeks, we are to break down ‘silos’ to get more collaboration, then I suggest that public funding of research needs to be dramatically increased and made more accessible to a greater proportion of Australia’s scientists in a way that fosters collaboration and minimises competition. The nation and the globe will be a lot better off as there is a long history of evidence of the considerable positive benefit: cost ratio from Australia’s investments in research and development. Marshall acknowledges that Australia has fallen behind in the innovation world partly due to its declining investment in research over decades.
It is at this point that Marshall mentions the success of CSIRO’s venture capital fund (Main Sequence) which has spawned some 250 new companies, employing thousands of people. This fund was created by CSIRO to ‘address the ‘valley of death’ between research and commercialisation’. How, may I ask, can CSIRO’s publicly funded scientists be insulated from conflicts of interest in such an environment? As one of the Partners of Main Sequence has written “Venture capital's big bang was the moment scientists became owners. Owners have more momentum than employees. They are driven by pride, agency, intention, hope and fear”. Yes, I can see the excitement of spawning new businesses outside CSIRO but won’t the potential for conflicts of interest on the part of publicly funded scientists lead to a decline in the trust of CSIRO as the national science agency, not to mention the damage to morale of all those other CSIRO scientists working on issues without a direct commercial outcome?
Surely there is the potential for these new companies - arising out of Australia’s investment in research - to be taken over by those outside Australia thus robbing this country of the rewards derived from this nation’s investments in research.
I question whether CSIRO’s focus is too readily simplified by his seven megatrends. What about other projects being worked on by those thousands of CSIRO scientists? Do they agree that the current focus on these megatrends and research ‘missions’ encompass all that CSIRO has to offer the nation and planet? Are they free to express their views? Instead of concentrating on artificial intelligence, CSIRO might be better off to focus on the intelligent use of its intelligent scientists across all its disciplines?
A question from the audience of journalists asked Marshall for his view of longer tenure for scientists. His answer was that he was not in favour of this as, in his own experience, he had managed to move from job to job with considerable success. But he also noted, in passing, that he left Australia 30 years ago because he could not get a good job in Australia with his PhD – doesn’t this support the need for more secure career paths for researchers in Australia?
My own experience is that the prospect of a secure career in research is a prime motivation for any young person deciding whether to undertake postgraduate study in the hope of securing a well-paid, secure job in their field of choice. What young graduate, often with an honours degree, saddled with a substantial HECS debt, contemplating starting a family and purchasing a house to live in, would not be concerned at the lack of secure career opportunities in research in Australia if they were to embark on postgraduate study? I know that these concerns limit the quality of applicants for postgraduate opportunities. I also have no doubt that job security and tenure are an enormously important factor in the careers of most CSIRO scientists and so it is vital that this issue be addressed.
I conclude that CSIRO should be working harder to ensure that our citizens do indeed trust science. This trust will be enhanced if there is less sales pitch, more transparent communication of objective facts, and more collaboration which will flow if there is less intense competition for scarce funding. This will allow our nation’s strategic research to be conducted free from commercial conflicts of interest. As I have written elsewhere, CSIRO needs to be trusted, trustworthy, apolitical and have its long-term strategic research funding provided without political interference. Finally, greater job security will help CSIRO attract our best and brightest minds allowing them and our nation to flourish long into the future.
Addendum (July 2, 2023)
Rick Morton's article in The Saturday Paper (June 24, 2023), titled "Insiders expose ‘bullshit’ at CSIRO", highlights serious problems within CSIRO’s senior management and its relationship with outgoing Chief Executive, Dr Larry Marshall.
Anonymous insiders told of their concerns about Main Sequence Ventures and its possible sale. This highlights the potential for conflicts of interest between Australia’s publicly funded national research body and those scientists and other individuals who may profit from participation in commercial ventures based on research conducted by CSIRO.
Any conflicts of interest will diminish trust in the agency and its scientists. As I have argued above, trust in science is paramount for the stewardship of our nation and planet.