Was the Rudd Government serious when it raised the notion of introducing a charter to protect scientific debate?
Or was it just the government's way wriggling out of what it hoped would be a temporary a spot of bother about accusations of science censorship?
This week, it was revealed that four CSIRO climate scientists had defied a gag order to present new research findings to a Senate climate policy inquiry into the government's proposed emissions trading scheme.
The scientists – Michael Raupach, James Risbey, John Church and Pep Canadell – were told they could not make submissions, or give evidence to the inquiry, as representatives of CSIRO because they would be commenting on government policy. They could, and thankfully did, make independent submissions, but were instructed by management that they must make it "absolutely clear" they were not speaking in any capacity as CSIRO scientists. In taking a stand and speaking out, they have shown a level of courage and respect for principle that deserves to be honoured.
What makes this situation so absurdly farcical is this rebel band of boffins are such high-profile achievers in their various research fields that it's impossible to forget they're CSIRO scientists. And when it suits CSIRO, the organisation is eager to push these scientists out into the media spotlight as experts who will give the agency credibility and cachet.
Mere weeks ago, when Raupach was elected to the Australian Academy of Science, CSIRO whipped out a media release, trumpeting him as one of their own – "Australian Academy of Science honours CSIRO scientist" was the headline boast. When Church won a Eureka science prize, there was a similar flurry of organisational pride – "Eureka! CSIRO wins for climate change research." Risbey was being promoted as a key CSIRO speaker at the recent Greenhouse 09 conference in Perth, and Canadell is a frequently cited CSIRO media spokesman on a range of climate change issues.
No, these are not scientists who can quietly park their research credentials in the cloakroom and assume anonymity. These are the experts we need to hear from to ensure Australia's climate policy – including its emissions reduction targets – is informed by accurate, up to date science.
The official line from CSIRO is that the inquiry's terms of reference lean toward policy, and while the organisation can offer "policy relevant" advice, it avoids making "policy prescriptive" comment. Therefore, some of Australia’s top climate scientists – make that taxpayer-funded scientists - cannot comment on the efficacy of the Rudd Government's emissions trading scheme. As Gertrude Stein might have said, a gag is a gag is a gag.
But look, here comes CSIRO's energy chief, Dr David Brockway, stepping up to the Senate inquiry to give expert evidence on CSIRO's behalf on the complex business of clean coal technologies. He told the inquiry he was "happy to give evidence on behalf of CSIRO" and also explained his participation didn't need to be ticked off by the chief executive." CSIRO's line is that he was invited to give evidence, and is "giving evidence on the SCIENCE (CSIRO's capitals and emphasis, not mine) of carbon capture – not commenting on POLICY" (ditto for the caps).
Last year, Federal science minister Kim Carr was talking up the "rights and responsibilities" of Australia's scientists to engage openly in public debate. The idea of a free speech charter arose shortly after embarrassing media reports of possible government censorship. It seems a staffer in the minister's new Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research verbally advised the country's leading science agencies – the CSIRO, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and around 50 Cooperative Research Centres - that all media releases relating to "the government's key messages" would need to be vetted by the department, and possibly even the minister.
The CSIRO requested the departmental instructions in writing, then wrote back contesting them. In the ensuing kerfuffle over the Orwellian implications for Australian science, Carr claimed the edict was "badly worded and ill-informed" and tried to distance himself.
The CSIRO public comment charter subsequently drawn up and signed off by Carr and the chair of CSIRO's board, Dr John Stocker, states it is 'essential' that scientists who have expertise in areas under debate "are able to communicate new ideas and to infuse public debate with the best research and new knowledge." It also explicitly states CSIRO and its researchers have a responsibility to "inform the policy making process."
Surely that means listening to informed criticism and not contriving to relegate world-class science to the sidelines. Honest debate, and honest government, is not based on stage-managed cheerleading, nor is it – to quote one federal bureaucrat - "a matter of synergising information supplied by research providers with the government's key policy messages." That's a woolly, weasel-wordy way of saying censorship.