SEPTEMBER 2003 Editorial

In July 2002 Australasian Science published a scathing criticism of CSIRO’s leadership by Dr Max Whitten, former Chief of CSIRO Entomology. In his conScience column Whitten wrote that half of CSIRO’s divisional chiefs “are looking elsewhere for jobs” and “top managers are severely stressed” as changes under CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Geoff Garrett forced researchers to “seek solutions that have more to do with corporate survival than the national interest”.

Australasian Science has followed the fallout from Whitten’s remarks since then, but we (and the media in general) have been stymied in our efforts to obtain a response from the elusive Garrett. For instance, in a 90-minute interview with our senior correspondent Peter Pockley last year, Garrett refused to answer any questions, insisting that he would only respond by email to questions provided in advance (AS, October 2002, p.45). But even this approach was abandoned after several weeks when answers were not forthcoming.

Even the Senate has found that getting answers from Garrett is like drawing blood from a stone. When Australasian Science went to press, 83 Questions on Notice from the Senate Estimates Committee remained weeks overdue.

But in June Australasian Science was contacted by CSIRO’s Media Unit offering an article by Garrett on the controversial Flagships program. We had already covered the launch – at which the preliminary status of the Flagships was highlighted by their description in up to five generalised dot points – and profiled the most advanced Flagship on Light Metals (AS, June 2003, pp.23–26). With two more Flagships to be unveiled in August (now delayed), we specifically requested that Garrett focus on the science of these Flagships rather than reiterate his “Big Hairy Audacious Goals”.

The resulting article (see pp.41–42) outlines Garrett’s reasons for overhauling CSIRO but sheds little detail on the Flagships. They remain big and hairy, but the audacity of the goals seems to be that existing CSIRO research is already being “cannibalised” to fund them (see Razor, pp.44–45) despite the sketchy state of their development.

Following reports of 250 impending staff cuts and a publicly disputed case over the forced redundancy of bacterial drug resistance expert Dr Ruth Hall, we invited CSIRO Staff Association President, Dr Michael Borgas, to speak out on staff concerns over CSIRO’s leadership (see conScience, p.43). The issues raised reveal a deep divide between Garrett’s corporate ideology and the values of free inquiry cherished by his scientists.

Guy Nolch
Editor