AUSTRALIA鈥檚 national research organisation, the CSIRO, was left reeling last week after two high-level inquiries criticised its management and the way it is funded.
A scathing report from a parliamentary committee concluded that the structure of the organisation was 鈥渁rchaic, hierarchical and top-heavy鈥�. The Senate Economics Committee also hinted that the way research is commissioned and funded could lead to conflicts of interest. The committee was initially asked to investigate complaints that the CSIRO was neglecting research into agriculture and other rural issues, but despite opposition from CSIRO management broadened its brief to look at the running of the organisation as well.
In a second report, the Industry Commission, an independent organisation which reports to government, recommended that the CSIRO鈥檚 freedom to set its own research priorities should be curtailed. Instead, government departments, possibly through research councils similar to those in Britain, should set priorities and contract the CSIRO to do the work.
Advertisement
The CSIRO, with a staff of more than 7400, consists of six research institutes divided into 32 divisions. It is already reeling from the surprise announcement in August that its chief executive, John Stocker, would not seek a second five-year appointment next March, although the board of the CSIRO was planning to reappoint him.
More than 160 scientists sent their views to the Senate committee. Many complained that much of their time was spent providing evidence to seemingly never-ending reviews. But despite all the reviews the organisation was still poorly managed, they said. According to the committee, many of the submissions it received said that the organisation had created too many managers who had forgotten what it was like to work on hands-on research.
A short-sighted enthusiasm for applied research at the expense of long-term basic research is a constant refrain throughout the report. 鈥淢any people believe short-term funding encouraged short-term vision,鈥� says the committee.
快猫短视频s also complained that the government鈥檚 insistence since 1989 that the CSIRO obtain at least 30 per cent of its funding from industry and other 鈥渆xternal鈥� sources had led to a loss of control over research. As a result, says the committee: 鈥溈烀ǘ淌悠祍 have become very good at selling themselves rather than their science.鈥�
Conflict of interest arising from the way contracts are awarded has also become a potential problem, the committee was told. Colin White, a senior scientist at the Division of Animal Production in Western Australia, testified last October: 鈥淚 believe that commercialisation carries a risk for the CSIRO鈥檚 ability to carry out strategic research and for its credibility as an honest broker.鈥� White says that CSIRO scientists could be pressured 鈥� directly or indirectly 鈥� to keep private some research findings that were in the 鈥減ublic interest鈥� in order to please corporate clients.
The Senate committee found that rural research had borne the brunt of government cuts to the CSIRO budget. Of the 400 staff shed by the CSIRO in the past three years, 243 have come from agricultural divisions. In contrast, divisions such as information technology which have a greater potential for generating profit have seen increases in expenditure.
The report from the Senate committee has been forwarded to the science minister Peter Cook, who must respond within three months. The CSIRO has made no official response to its criticisms but says they will be referred to an internal review of the organisation鈥檚 structure, which is due to be completed in February.
The CSIRO criticised the Industry Commission鈥檚 suggestion that research priorities should be decided outside the organisation, either by a new body set up to commission research in the national interest, or by the ministers with relevant portfolios. Stocker said last week that this strategy had not worked well in Britain.