Science Non-Communication

[barrington]

By now you should have somehow realised what I've got to do, i.e. communicate science to the world (or at least small parts of it). Today I realised I'd better get my skates on, because this Crikey article, "Is the CSIRO Gagging Scientists?", suggests that scientists working for the CSIRO might not be able to communicate it themselves.

I wanted to find a copy of said Policy, but I couldn't find it on the CSIRO's web site. I mean, I can see two sides to this - obviously an organisation like the CSIRO wants some control over the information presented as coming from it - but these guys are scientists. Respected ones, you'd hope, if they're working with the CSIRO. It's not as if they can make any old outlandish claim they like, they're talking about science, they have to be at least a bit rigorous about it, even in an informal context. Honestly, if you ask an actual scientist for an explanation of something or other, you'll probably hear a phrase like "Well, the evidence suggests" or "The current theory is" or what have you, and if they're talking about their own field then they can probably cite you at least a few references. If the CSIRO has dissention in its ranks, I'm not convinced this is the way to sort it out.

I could only access "CSIRO Communications in Turmoil - Again" from Australasian Science Magazine via Google's "view PDF as HTML" option, so it's probably been removed (because it's old - from March - rather than for a cover up, I'm sure). But it suggests the original Policy on Public Comment document from November (Crikey above refers to a new version from last week) was created by Director of Communications Donna Staunton in response to "a few bold scientists" who "made mild comments on the environment and global climate change in the lead-up to the Federal election in October". Norman Abjørensen, hired in August last year as her Manager of Communications, resigned after twenty weeks and many "attacks on the competence, experience and style" of both Staunton (his boss) and CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Geoff Garrett. He went so far (probably too far) as to confront her at a Christmas party in front of many other CSIRO employees, but his resignation letter holds only contempt for the way CSIRO communication is being handled, rather than personal vitriol.

I hope something changes, but I know one thing for sure: I can't remember the last time I heard the CSIRO mentioned in the news media before today, and my eyes and ears pick up science-related news pretty handily. Just as well I have a venue for Evolutionary (Glitch Bar, for those of you playing at home.)

Comments

[murphus.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the internal problems are rife within the CSIRO, but.. could the general decision to gag scientists' communication be a result of intellectual property issues? There's been a huge wave of discussion at Monash on IP, especially where new definitions are emerging - eg. a circuit diagram constitutes intellectual property but is not an entity previously considered in policies.

[barrington.livejournal.com]

Maybe, but I don't see how that can really affect communication to the public, which is what this policy is all about. After all, surely by the time public comment is necessary or interesting, patents have been filed and so on - and enough detail to constitute breaches of IP laws surely wouldn't be communicated in such a context?

[rincemaj.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the CSIRO is taking lessons from the NIS.

[canuckwannabe.livejournal.com]

Why don't you contact them directly or this guy and get the facts and more info? I bet someone would talk to you.