The CSIRO delayed the release of an independent expert review of its oceans and climate research division for almost a year, claiming the report had to be signed off by the agency's board before being circulated to staff.
CSIRO Staff Association president Michael Borgas has blasted the reason given for the delay as ''a farce'', saying the reviews are usually widely circulated to scientific staff for comment.
''In this case, staff were not given the chance to do this,'' he said.
Dr Borgas has accused CSIRO's top management of suppressing the report to avoid staff scrutiny of its recommendations and ''to allow a self-important management culture to implement its own agenda regarding the direction of future research''.
But the agency's environment executive, Andrew Johnson, said the timing in releasing the report to staff was ''consistent with external reviews that have been commissioned for other divisions''.
The review, by a panel of six leading scientists, praised CSIRO oceanographer Trevor McDougall's research as impressive and world-renowned. It recommended the agency continue and increase support for his work.
But six months after the review was submitted, Dr McDougall was made redundant.
According to figures supplied by Dr Johnson, the CSIRO spent $51,000 on travel and accommodation expenses for the six-member panel, and $19,749 on daily expenses during the week they spent in Hobart.
Three scientists, including Professor Chet Koblinsky - a top climate science adviser to US president Barack Obama's administration - were flown from the United States. One scientist arrived from the Netherlands, and two Australian scientists travelled to Tasmania from Brisbane and Melbourne.
Dr Johnson said the expert panel provided its report to CSIRO in December 2010. Three months later, he received a draft response from the division and requested ''some revisions and clarifications,'' he said.
These ''took some time'' but were finalised in July 2011, and the agency's response to the expert report was endorsed by CSIRO's executive team in August. After approval from the board, it was made available to the division's staff in October.
Dr Borgas said scientific staff were aware the expert review had been submitted, but ''it was kept under wraps for some time, and few were even aware it had been put up on the intranet.
''Usually, it would go out to staff for comment and input would be encouraged. There would be staff discussions and an open consultation process, but scientists are now finding they have to battle and haggle with CSIRO senior management to be consulted over critical decisions.''
Earlier this week, The Canberra Times obtained copies of the expert review and CSIRO's formal response to its recommendations. They reveal the CSIRO rejected a recommendation by the panel to appoint a science advisory committee to clear up confusion over ''science vision at a higher level'' among executives involved in running its marine and atmospheric research division. ''The suggestion ... is not supported as there are already committees that encompass this role,'' the CSIRO response said.
Dr McDougall, who is regarded as one of the world's leading climate researchers, was made redundant less than six months after receiving the peer-nominated Prince Albert medal for ocean research. It was his seventh major science award.
Last month, more than 160 of the world's top oceans and climate scientists signed a letter emailed to CSIRO chief executive Megan Clark, protesting at Dr McDougall's dismissal. The letter accused CSIRO of relinquishing its responsibility to global climate science, and abandoning high-impact research.
.gif)
