Dissent mounting over CSIRO staff cuts

Call to Science Minister Christopher
 Pyne to halt cuts at CSIRO

Dissent within the ranks of CSIRO is mounting, with the staff union claiming the planned job cuts are deeper than formally announced while dozens of scientists have lodged a formal complaint against alleged bullying behaviour by chief executive Dr Larry Marshall.

The CSIRO plans to cut 100 more staff than the 350 job losses formally announced in February, says the CSIRO Staff Association, citing information subsequently provided by executives.

"The 450 potential job losses comprise of 100 in Land and Water, 100 in Oceans and Atmosphere, 70 in Data61, 40 in Agriculture, 40 in Manufacturing, 40 in Mineral Resources, 20 in Food and Nutrition and 40 in Research Support," Sam Popovski, the association's secretary, said in a statement.

The union has also written to Science Minister Christopher Pyne, calling on him to suspend the cuts and begin an independent inquiry into CSIRO's management structure and processes.

Read Peter Hannam’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “CSIRO cuts: Union claims jobs cut swells to 450 as formal complaints lodged.”

PM's plea for innovation, agility, disruption answered by CSIRO/BOM outcome

CSIRO boss Larry Marshall.

Australia’s PM has repeatedly called for innovation, agility, and disruption.

Malcolm Turnbull, along with others in the government should be smiling as the CSIRO has enacted what he proposed.

CSIRO boss, Dr Larry Marshall, brought disruption to the organization announcing that its emphasis on climate change research would change saying: “We must focus our work on areas of the most benefit and sometimes this means making some tough choices, making changes and most importantly looking 20 years ahead to what Australia will need.”

“CSIRO is working on tomorrow. For example, our world leading solar thermal technology has already attracted exports, we are using sky cameras to better integrate solar into our grids, we are working on methods to control fugitive emissions from mining activities, and we are dramatically reducing energy and chemical use, and greenhouse gas emissions in the minerals industry through smart ore sorting technology. Each of these technologies is addressing a fundamental need that faces society now, climate change mitigation,” he said.

What he doesn’t say, however, that Australia’s world-class climate change scientific and research departments within the organization will be scaled back and the emphasis will be on aligning its work with Australia’s market-driven, profit-based economy.

Malcolm Turnbull would be delighted as the changes forced upon the CSIRO (“forced” has many interpretations) such as his innovative, agile and disruptional goals have been achieved, but at a cost, both personal and through the erosion of Australia’s position on the climate change scientific hierarchy.

Mr Turnbull’s push for innovation appears to be answered with another government organization, which obviously recognizes the value of the CSIRO’s climate change research, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) is planning to pick up its work.

With BOM valuing and in need of the CSIRO research it will, in an agile and  innovative move, take on that research – the PM will be pleased – Robert McLean.

Read the story in today’s Melbourne Age - “Bureau of Meteorology plan to take over CSIRO climate change research.”

'Sounds more like religion than science' - CSIRO boss

Dr Larry Marshall - 'sounds more
 like religion than science.'

The CSIRO's chief has told the ABC the backlash from his decision to restructure the organisation has made him feel like an "early climate scientist in the '70s fighting against the oil lobby" and that there is so much emotion in the debate it almost "sounds more like religion than science".

Dr Larry Marshall said he would not be backing down on his controversial shake-up of the organisation's climate divisions, telling the ABC he was yet to be persuaded.

Read the ABC story - “CSIRO boss defends shake-up, says politics of climate 'more like religion than science'.”

(Larry Marshall appears to making and “either, or” call for Australia’s preeminent science body in relation to its approach to climate change. However, the dilemma is so complex, so consuming and so inconsiderate of what we would like to do and spend our money on, that we cannot afford to the choosey about what it is we do. He has argued that the institution needed to get “measurement and modelling” and use its resource to better understand what Australia and world needed to do in terms of adaptation.

Constrained by an ideologically limited budget, Dr Marshall has made a call, but I suggest the wrong one for without the measurement and modelling, our scientists, and others, do not what they are adapting to or how far it is they need to reach.

Both the fundamentals of climate science need to be attended to as do the broader sweep of behaviour and how we must act responsibly in our attempts to adapt to different circumstances that will evolve as climate change unfolds.

The suggestion by Dr Marshall that the climate conversation is so emotional that it sounds more like religion than science is somewhat ironic as any challenge to the market-driven economy (the prime cause of climate change) will bring an emotive, religious-like response from most anyone, including certainly our PM and probably Dr Marshall himself -
Robert McLean).