Australia's national science organisation planned to stop "doing science for science sake" and would no longer do "public good" work unless it was linked to jobs and economic growth, according to internal emails between CSIRO senior managers.

The emails contradict claims that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has remained committed to research that does not bring in revenue, and illustrate the scale of the restructure planned under new chief executive Larry Marshall.

Under Dr Marshall, CSIRO has shifted its focus to making money to pay for its work. The vision sees the iconic Australian science organisation as an "innovation catalyst".

The emails confirm the century-old organisation was particularly focused on – in the words used in an exchange between managers in CSIRO's oceans and atmosphere division – "eliminating all capability" of its climate change research programs.

An email from Andreas Schiller, science and deputy director of oceans and atmosphere, on January 18 suggested CSIRO aim to make a "clean cut" to get rid of "public good/government-funded climate research".

Sent two weeks before the cuts were announced, it suggested axing 120 climate science staff.

"If we aim for less we will inevitably face the problem of keeping some of the climate scientists (who will no longer be aligned with the new CSIRO strategy)," Dr Schiller wrote.

A full draft plan for the oceans and atmosphere division from February, when the cuts without announced with few details, shows the proposed changes included:

*Abolishing research on global greenhouse gas emissions.
*Abolishing research on sea level rise.
*Abolishing research in Antarctica.
*Abolishing multi-year, multi-decadal climate modelling and analysis.
*Reducing collection and analysis of ocean carbon levels, due to "insufficient demand".
*Reducing research into the management of the impact on biodiversity, due to reduced demand.
*Reducing research in Australia's tropical north, and northern Australian fisheries.
*Continuing research on "fugitive emissions" – greenhouse gases unintentionally released during industrial activity.


Where the draft plan refers to insufficient or reduced demand, it is understood it means that research area does not bring in enough money from government or private sources. CSIRO's public-good research spans many of its disciplines, including agriculture, energy and astronomy.

Email dump

The emails are among nearly 700 pages of internal CSIRO documents released in response to a request by a Greens-Labor convened Senate inquiry into the plan to cut as many as 350 CSIRO jobs. More emails between senior CSIRO managers are yet to be released.
Dr Marshall, a physicist and former Silicon Valley venture capitalist, has said sacked staff were expected to be replaced over the next two years by a similar number in different areas. They would include 35 new climate jobs looking at how to tackle the problem, rather than measure what is happening.

The cuts to monitoring, measuring and analysing climate data have been condemned by scientists in Australia and internationally, including criticism by the head of the World Meteorological Organisation's climate research program and an editorial in the New York Times.

Managers at science agencies that partner with and rely on CSIRO – including the Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Antarctic Division and the University of Tasmania's Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies – were surprised by the cuts and unclear what it would mean for joint research projects.

Within CSIRO, the reaction has at times been hostile. Scientists from the land and water division in Canberra walked out of a meeting session with Dr Marshall two weeks ago over cuts to their numbers, and the staff union is challenging the cuts in the Fair Work Commission.
It is understood the external pressure is likely to have helped save dozens of jobs, with one climate-related unit now expected to lose about 35 staff, down from an initial plan to cut 65 jobs.

'Deep dive'
The union may cite documents released to the Senate inquiry, including an email from Dr Schiller to other managers sent in November ahead of "deep dive" discussions about redistributing funding within CSIRO.

It says a group of senior managers had discussed that CSIRO's focus would be to "maximise the impact on the nation", and that it should not "do science for science sake" – that having your research published in the prestigious journal Nature alone was not enough to "cut it".

"Public good is not enough, needs to be linked to jobs and growth, but science that leads to SLO [social licence to operate] is ok," Dr Schiller summarised. He said the CSIRO executive wanted "investible propositions" and "growth cases".

In the January 18 email two months later, Dr Schiller suggested to division director Ken Lee and a fellow manager that the oceans and atmosphere division should aim to sack about 120 staff – considered the "high" option by CSIRO management – to get rid of all "public good/government-funded climate research".

Dr Lee replied: "I agree – let's overshoot first."
(To put this into context: the Senate inquiry has heard that Dr Lee and his team initially proposed that 35 climate related jobs be cut. They were told by Dr Marshall and his executive that they needed to sack 100.)

CSIRO spokesman Huw Morgan said on Monday the comments in the emails were options considered during an early stage of planning. "They didn't meet our criteria once we looked at the external contract obligations, changes in and impacts on other oceans and atmosphere programs or across CSIRO business units and so those options weren't progressed," he said.

Only by half

Dr Marshall has denied all climate researchers would be cut. Giving evidence at Senate estimates in February – after the above email exchange – he said the organisation would cut climate monitoring and measuring staff in half and try "to be smarter about how we do things" by collaborating better with other organisations.

In evidence to the Senate inquiry in early March, CSIRO environment, energy and resources executive director Alex Wonhas – Dr Lee's boss, and a member of Dr Marshall's executive – denied public-good research would be abolished. He said it had been the foundation of what CSIRO had done and would remain on its agenda.

"I think, in this debate, it can appear that CSIRO is pulling out of public-good research. I really want to categorically say, 'This is not our intent'," he said.

"I, and I would say several thousand of our employees, are committed to continuing to do public-good research. It is probably a fair criticism that we maybe have not articulated that position sufficiently well, especially in the last couple of weeks. But I can assure you that that is something that we are working on and that we endeavour to rectify."

Dr Marshall is due to give evidence to the Senate inquiry into the cuts on Thursday. CSIRO staff are expected to be told details of the cuts later this month.

'Barbarism'

Greens Senator Janet Rice said the released documents showed the organisation had no justification for cutting so many climate research jobs.

Senator Rice, whose partner Penny Whetton is an honorary CSIRO research fellow, called on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to intervene.

"It is vandalism and barbarism," she said.

"It is particularly galling because it is our premier research organisation, and our only research organisation that has guaranteed long-term funding."Labor has previously called on the government to halt the cuts until after the election. The government says CSIRO operates as an independent statutory agency.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/no-science-for-science-sake-emails-show-csiro-plans-to-cut-climate-research-20160403-gnxezq.html

Quote:

Australia's national science organisation planned to stop "doing science for science sake" and would no longer do "public good" work unless it was linked to jobs and economic growth

...about time they started making money instead of spending it  :D

Who needs science when you have sky fairies

Its time wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 1:54pm:

Who needs science when you have sky fairies

It's "Sky Fairies" that they've been spending all the tax-payer's money on......

Kiron22 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 11:18am:

An email from Andreas Schiller, science and deputy director of oceans and atmosphere, on January 18 suggested CSIRO aim to make a "clean cut" to get rid of "public good/government-funded climate research". Sent two weeks before the cuts were announced, it suggested axing 120 climate science staff.

Kiron22 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 11:18am:

Dr Marshall, a physicist and former Silicon Valley venture capitalist, has said sacked staff were expected to be replaced over the next two years by a similar number in different areas. They would include 35 new climate jobs looking at how to tackle the problem, rather than measure what is happening.

Seeing as the science is settled, shouldn't looking at mitigation be the top priority?

Swagman wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 1:51pm:

Quote: Australia's national science organisation planned to stop "doing science for science sake" and would no longer do "public good" work unless it was linked to jobs and economic growth ...about time they started making money instead of spending it  :D

I'm sorry  :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:31pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 5th, 2016 at 1:51pm: Quote: Australia's national science organisation planned to stop "doing science for science sake" and would no longer do "public good" work unless it was linked to jobs and economic growth ...about time they started making money instead of spending it  :D I'm sorry  :o :o

...so you should be

Swagman wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 3:31pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 5th, 2016 at 1:51pm: Quote: Australia's national science organisation planned to stop "doing science for science sake" and would no longer do "public good" work unless it was linked to jobs and economic growth ...about time they started making money instead of spending it  :D I'm sorry  :o :o ...so you should be

You don't know shite about what science does for an economy!

...or maybe you do and just pretend you don't  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 4:29pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 3:53pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 3:31pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 5th, 2016 at 1:51pm: Quote: Australia's national science organisation planned to stop "doing science for science sake" and would no longer do "public good" work unless it was linked to jobs and economic growth ...about time they started making money instead of spending it  :D I'm sorry  :o :o ...so you should be You don't know shite about what science does for an economy! ...or maybe you do and just pretend you don't  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

...the Poindexters should get busy arranging some nuke power generators which would do wonders for the economy.... :D

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/thorium.jpg

Swagman wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 5:23pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 4:29pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 3:53pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 3:31pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 5th, 2016 at 1:51pm: Quote: Australia's national science organisation planned to stop "doing science for science sake" and would no longer do "public good" work unless it was linked to jobs and economic growth ...about time they started making money instead of spending it  :D I'm sorry  :o :o ...so you should be You don't know shite about what science does for an economy! ...or maybe you do and just pretend you don't  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ...the Poindexters should get busy arranging some nuke power generators which would do wonders for the economy.... :D http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/thorium.jpg

Lol, swaggy doesn't know the difference between science and the application of science  :o