Hot topics                    

Friday 21 December 2007 (Updated Fri 28 Dec 2007)

RAPID ROUNDUP

CSIRO & CRC releases to be cleared through PM's office - scientists / communicators respond

Scientists / science communicators respond below to recent media reports that independent statutory authorities such as the CSIRO and CRCs must clear their press releases through the Prime Minister’s Office to ensure they reflect the Government’s key messages.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. If you wish to speak to one of these or another expert, contact the AusSMC on 08 8207 7415.

Emeritus Professor Max Brennan, AO is Chief Scientist for South Australia. He was chair of the Australian Research Council (ARC) from 1991 to 1997.

He comments on each of the three ‘agencies’ separately.

Comment re CSIRO:
“CSIRO is funded by the government to undertake research of importance to the nation. The media announcements on the results of that research should not be muzzled by interference from the government; nor should expert comments that have a foundation in that research.”

Comment re the ARC:
“The Australian Research Council, now that it has been 'neutered' to become merely a ministerial committee rather than a statutory authority, is the only one of the three organisations mentioned in recent reports that can legitimately be required to have its media releases vetted by government.”

Comment re CRCs:
“The Cooperative Research Centres are in no way government agencies. They are funded only in part by the government and increasingly are incorporated entities. It is totally inappropriate for the government to regulate what they say!”

Professor Nancy Millis, Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne.

"I am greatly concerned that CSIRO and CRCs may be required to have government approval of press releases about their research. These highly respected, credible organisations work to advance science and its applications for the benefit of all Australians. It is important that their work be freely available in a timely manner; media releases from the scientists directly (without having to pass through government filters) offer the best way of exposing the public and financial houses to novel ideas and applications."

Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

“This is very depressing news for those of us who campaigned vigorously against the suppression of science by the Howard government. We were entitled to think that the new government would return CSIRO to its critical role as an independent scientific agency. It is certainly not the role of CSIRO or other research organisations to reinforce whatever ‘message’ the elected government wants to promote; their role should be to inform public discussion by communicating the findings of research and scholarship. I do hope this announcement is an over-zealous attempt by one bureaucrat to control science and, in that spirit, I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister's office will issue a clear statement about the role of public science and its duty to communicate openly with the public.”

Professor Rob Morrison is professorial fellow at Flinders University, winner of the 2007 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for the promotion of science and a freelance science broadcaster.

“This seems to be a dreadfully retrograde step, camouflaged by euphemisms. ‘Ensuring consistency’ involves controlling the message, whatever the denial. It is the role of science to produce findings, not just politically convenient findings, and scientists should normally be free to release their findings and comment on them within their acknowledged areas of expertise.

There is no defence in the claim that ‘it is not an unusual move, and similar things happened under the previous government.’ They certainly did. Last year the CSIRO attempted to control its scientists’ comments, was heavily and publicly caned for it and had the grace to admit it got it wrong. Now it is being forced back along the same suspect path.

Many big and current issues in Australian science, climate change among them, are complex. They are made much more so in the media by statements, claims and counter claims that owe more to politics and ideology than they do to science. To see such a directive issued by a new government is both distressing and disturbing. It suggests that, just when we need clarity in science debates in Australia, it will be tainted by at least the perception of political filtering.”

Niall Byrne is Director of Science in Public. His expertise is in science communication and public relations and he was the Director of the World Conference of Science Journalists held in Melbourne in April this year.

"It would be bad for science and bad for Australia if our national science agencies were required to have their media releases vetted by political operators.

CSIRO and its scientists have a high level of public recognition and public trust because the organisation communicates openly and widely about its work, and it encourages scientists to speak to the media in their areas of knowledge.

This is in stark contrast with most state departments of agriculture, the Australian Antarctic Division and the Bureau of Meteorology. These organisations usually have to have their media releases signed off by departmental/ministerial staff. There is less public awareness and trust of their work as a result.

George Bush tried to control NASA and NOAH scientists. He failed eventually. I can't believe that Prime Minister Rudd would seriously consider a similar course of action.

Science is too important to be put through a political filter."