SEPTEMBER 2003
Pockley's Razor:
CSIRO's "Cannibalism"
The consequences of the first annual 10% “take” from
CSIRO Divisions to fund the Flagships are now emerging. Not only
are jobs being trashed or moved increasingly to short-term positions,
but a parallel scheme of “salary substitution” is working
along the following lines.
A research group is successful in obtaining external funding,
a priority imposed by CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Geoff Garrett and
the government. Instead of the money being dedicated to hiring
new and young staff to drive the research in fresh directions
(and offer career prospects), team leaders are told to do the
work themselves and take technicians from other projects (all
previously salaried from government appropriations).
Scientists call this “cannibalism” and are worried stiff
about what will happen as 30% more is removed from their appropriations
over the next 3 years.
Australasian Science has reported escalating problems in
CSIRO throughout the past year, first through retired senior staff
going public with their concerns following Dr Max Whitten’s
coruscating conScience column in July 2002. Many staff responded
with specific complaints about Garrett’s “Big Hairy
Audacious Goals” (aka Flagships) but were too worried about
their jobs to allow themselves to be named.
Nonetheless, Flagships seem to have garnered favour within government
and deflected moves to split CSIRO (similar to moves made in New
Zealand) or to transfer some of its work to universities. Garrett,
who is well into the second half of his 5-year term as Chief Executive,
presents his case on pages 41–42.
However, as many of their cherished goals and careers are being
directly affected, CSIRO scientists have collectively voiced their
worries about the long-term future for CSIRO through a bold conScience
column by Staff Association President, Dr Michael Borgas (see
conScience).
Yet to come are answers by CSIRO to 83 Questions on Notice from
the Senate Estimates Committee hearing on 4 June. Answers were
due for tabling on 21 July but they had still not been released
when Australasian Science went to press weeks later.
The questions cover the expenses of managing the budget and commercialisation,
generation of external revenue, the Research Vessel Southern Surveyor,
issues in the Forests & Forest Products Division, exposure
to the collapsed Australian Magnesium Corporation, and advertising
for a new Communications Director without requiring qualifications
or experience in the communication of science.
CSIRO Goes Legal – Against a Government
On 19 June CSIRO issued Media Release 3/103. Trumpeting “CSIRO
Asserts Ownership of Gene Silencing Technology”, it was issued
by Terry Healy, CSIRO General Counsel, with reference to CSIRO
Plant Industry. The first half read:
CSIRO researchers first demonstrated
gene silencing in an organism by intentionally using double-stranded
RNA in 1995.
Since then, CSIRO has filed a number of patent applications relating
to the gene silencing field and holds a granted US patent (US
6,423,885 Methods for obtaining modified phenotypes in plant cells),
an accepted patent application in Australia and a number of further
pending US and international applications.
CSIRO is aware that the US and UK patent offices have recently
announced a grant of patent on patent applications filed by Benitec
Australia Limited and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries
(QDPI) in relation to certain gene silencing applications in animals.
CSIRO is opposing Benitec and QDPI’s Australian patent application
on the grounds that CSIRO is the rightful owner of this technology
and has submitted extensive documentary evidence to the Australian
Patent Office asserting that the technology had already been invented
and refined by CSIRO scientists prior to mid-1996.
CSIRO later expanded its legal case in public through the newsletter
Bioshare on 11 July. Razor has no comment on the merits or prospects
of this inevitably complex action, but we are far from alone in
questioning why CSIRO felt it must promote its action through
the media (and to the share market).
|
 |
Here we see one publicly funded body resorting to inevitably expensive legal
action against another public body – indeed a State government
(Queensland) – and a small Australian company that has received
vocal support from Premier, Peter Beattie. Benitec is vigorously
defending its patent, which was filed 19 days before CSIRO’s.
This action seems to be unique in Australian science and, perhaps,
in Federal/State government relations. It is indicative of the
corrosive, commercial imperative that is driving CSIRO nowadays.
Stargazers Win Friends while Seeking Billions
The recent General Assembly of the International Astronomical
Union in Sydney was a great example of the deft hand that astronomers
have long played in winning public and political support. Their
use of the media was impeccable – accessible, straightforward
and articulate and backed by understated, but comprehensive, help
by media liaison staff to reporters (see Browse, pp.4–10).
Working behind the scenes, the Australian star-struck lobby seems
to have won a significant concession from Education & Science
Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, who delighted the 2000 delegates
by opening his door to the Australian National University to discuss
further requests for funding to rebuild the Mt Stromlo Observatory,
which was devastated in Canberra’s bushfires last January.
Astronomers worldwide now present their greatest case for public
support. This time the push must be internationally collaborative,
rather than national, as the ventures they seek money for are
in the US$ billion range for each of three truly massive telescopes
– the (radio) Square Kilometre Array and the (optical) Overwhelmingly
Large Telescope and the Giant Segmented Mirror (with the California
Extremely Large) Telescope. These will be featured in a future
issue of Australasian Science.
Science Education through Astronomy
One of the most impressive stories came from South African astronomers,
who told me how they won top priority for “blue sky”
research facilities from Nelson Mandela and his government and
his successor, Thabo Mbeki. Despite facing huge social, economic,
educational and cultural challenges on taking power from the apartheid
regime in 1994, Mandela listened to scientists and implemented
a constructive science policy immediately on assuming power.
Science Minister (then and now) Dr Ben Ngubane, a Zulu medico,
gained Cabinet support for prominent facilities that would not
only help South African scientists (dominantly white) to get back
on the international stage, but would also educate and inspire
young black people in science. Benefiting from this initiative
have been astronomers like Prof Justin Jonas and Dr David Buckley,
who lead radio and optical groups, respectively (see p.10). Funds
have been channelled principally through the National Research
Foundation headed by Dr Khotso Mokhele, an eloquent Mosotho and
one of South Africa’s first black PhDs (in microbiology from
the USA).
He told me: “South Africa is undergoing a massive project
of social engineering, with Nelson Mandela as its cheerleader.
We cannot justify the money for big telescopes only for today.
We are planning for decades ahead. We went to the Cabinet and
have been invited to ask for the money we realistically need to
host the Square Kilometre Array and take it from you guys in Australia!”
All schoolchildren near the Southern African Large Telescope (SALT)
have spent a night at the observatory, and all science teachers
in South Africa will soon follow. “The iconic status of SALT
is amazing,” Mokhele said. “To spend a night as the
dark sky reveals the stars rekindles wonder in everyone”.
Biologists Losing Out
Astronomers engender envy among scientists in other fields of
basic science who neither enjoy glamour nor need spectacular facilities.
They just need much greater, ongoing funding. This spilled out
when I was telling some biologists about the astronomers’
success in gaining publicity.
The biologists are equally enthusiastic about research in fields
like the systematic study and classification of molluscs and worms
that are central to our understanding of the biosphere and protection
of biodiversity. Media attention would be a help in recognising
the value of their work, but “PR” is only part of a
continuous campaign needed from biologists themselves for articulating
their case at every level.
Peter Pockley
|
