Bishop Hill Scientific independence
Aug 19, 2011 Bureaucrats Climate: other Matthu in Unthreaded notes a video of a retired CSIRO scientist named Art Raiche speaking about scientists' ability (or inability) to pursue their research independently of government:
The original Scientists of the CSIRO were the best of their day and the CSIRO was a non-government organisation working with quality science and how useful it was to Australia. (research)
In the 80s, I noticed we were under increasing pressure to become more “business-like” and the doors were opened to “management consultation.”
Layer upon layer of management was created, some intersecting others.
You think that your tax dollars went towards research but a lot of it was devoted to letting them play their management games… the CSIRO was sent to fancy business schools in the US and Europe and they didn’t learn one thing…
Management learned how to bring the most senior climate scientist under their control. It was OK to think independently…as long as management approved of it.
We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy. If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal.
We had now become a government enterprise. We were told by the chairperson that we scientists no longer worked for Australia, we had to learn that we worked for the CSIRO.
I know Richard Betts has commented that he has felt no such pressure here in the UK, but even then I am sure that the alleged independence of scientists is less than one might have hoped. The head of one of the research councils assured me in no uncertain terms that the Haldane principle (that research councils direct funding, not politicians) was fully functional, and I must say I was somewhat reassured. However, that was until I saw this (from a couple of months ago):
The Haldane principle is an unhelpful myth that "bedevils" discussions of research policy, an academic has claimed.
...
Sir Adam Roberts, president of the British Academy and emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, agreed that Lord Haldane "must be turning in his grave at the uses to which his name has been put".
He said it was interesting that researchers had felt the need to invent a historical principle to protect academic freedom, but it was important that the principle was nuanced enough to acknowledge the legitimate interest that government sometimes had in research funding.
"If there is a major concern about climate change, it is legitimate for government to devote some thought to the structure of that research. It is not particularly useful to have absolute Chinese walls between government and academics," he said.
That said, I remain unsure about the extent of political involvement in the whole global warming thing. I still see it as being driven more by received wisdom in the bureaucracy and the scientific establishment than by politicians. When we listen to Art Raiche's point about guidelines on not criticising government policy, is this a case of the scientific bureaucracy not wanting to upset their paymasters or a case of politicians trying to quash any threats to their positions? Probably a bit of both.
Bishop Hill
James Wilsdon sends this link to an article by historian David Edgerton on the myth of the Haldane Principle.
Reader Comments (17)
It is the Universities that are the conscience and critic, government owned applied research labs like CSIRO pay the piper.
Magnificent! I was in the same Division of the CSIRO as Art. He was famous (notorious?) as a real straight shooter, and hard as nails. He carries a lot of weight within the Earth Science community, as well as with industry. I'm glad that time hasn't softened him, and proud to hear him speak out.
Watch this blog post to see how many comments it generates, particularly ones expressing concern or dismay; that will be hard evidence of how bad the group-think (of unquestioned, unsupported dogma) is, across all of science today. Almost nobody, in universities or any other authoritative scientific institution, who should be concerned, is concerned. Science is more than ripe for revolution; my research, into the objective origin of the "ancient mysteries" that have plagued mankind throughout history, has resulted in revolutionary new knowledge, that simply erases the central, most religiously believed and hotly defended of modern theories in the earth and life sciences -- plate tectonics in the former, undirected evolution in both (consensus scientists believe the earth, not just the life on it, simply "evolved" into its present complex, life-sustaining state). Future generations will know this and the past half-dozen generations, at least back to Darwin, as fools for such unquestioned, bitterly held beliefs. Determinedly fighting against religion, science has fundamentally become religion, its own bitter enemy. Its grasp on true knowledge and true logic has substantially faded, just in the last generation, as witnessed by older, independent scientists like me who know the climate consensus to be outright garbage. Political perversion of science is just the method chosen by the religious believers to make their aggressive cult all-powerful, and unquestionable. Western science, as it is now understood by the "consensus", WILL FALL, it is just a question whether scientists will heed and accept the corrective findings of this real scientist, and self-correct on a fundamental level, or fight against changing their ever more contrived and vapid beliefs, and risk the fall of western civilization itself. A scientific revolution now, or world revolution before very long. Both are already baked into the mix of human struggle thus far in history; how will mankind let it play out?
"...of this real scientist, and others like me with verifiable new knowledge..."
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Bishop, I think you ruminate on the ways that the various institutions involved cooperate to maintain the idea that climate dooms mankind unless he repents his profligate ways and restrains his consumption. Your thoughts would seem to match part of the network diagram accessible behind the words ‘Probably a bit of both’ in your introductory piece.
For the skeptic on the warpath, however, the government is in charge of policy and must be the target. Efforts directed at the media, the administration, green activists, climate scientists or industry will be a waste of time except in so far as those bodies, agencies, etc, are persuaded to go on to influence government. Also a government is relatively small, easily delineated and therefore makes a good target, whereas many of the others are somewhat more ill defined and difficult to aim at.
(Incidentally, I have difficulty with the explanatory couple at the bottom of the network diagram. Also, I would have thought the IPCC and politicians/political parties should appear somewhere.)
Ecc Unc
How much is the bureaucracy operating under the direction of the politicians, and how much is it a law unto itself. I fancy it's much more the latter than the former, but I think one is going to have to show that this is the case before the politicians can be persuaded to get a grip.
What would an honest Government Climate scientist do if he discovered alarmism to be completely without foundation? Might he worry that if there's really no problem, further research would assume pretty low priority for funds at a time when Government expenditure has to be cut back to what the country can afford? And that his job might be at risk? At the very least might he refrain from speaking out and go back over his work to make quite sure?
And might a Government Scientist of more careerist inclination look at the precedent of the Weapons of Mass Destruction intelligence, and note that telling the Government what it wanted to hear in order to justify decisions already taken seemed to result in promotion and honours, whereas "whistle-blowing", or expression of unwelcome news seemed to result in a visit by the men in black and a "looks like suicide" on the edge of a wood?
Both scientists being only human ...
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Hear hear to both previous posts!
Bishop, I agree the current stability of the situation results from the self sustaining loops illustrated in the network diagram. That is why I used the word ‘maintain’ in my observations on your opening piece.
To make progress in the war, the government has to be convinced there has been a mistake, sever the links with those that now enable it to sustain its beliefs and go its own way (ours, of course).
How is that going to happen? Well, what this blog does certainly helps a little, but the main push will come from the taxpayer, I would think. In detail, it would involve the PM or the Cabinet Office in asking Sir J to advise them that climate science tells them nothing that justifies current policies. To get this advice fed to him, Sir J would have to replace rhe current members of the Climate Change Committee with other more balanced souls. But he is free to do this under the Cimate Change Act. However, I don't actually see anything like this happening while coalition government persists because the Libs are, I think, hopelessly in thrall with the green religion.
JohnH, you and I see what goes on in exactly the same way. Have you pirated the ideas from my recent posts in the IPCC report writing discussion in the Discussions pages of this blog? Or are you a fellow long time sympathetic observer of human nature in a situation where the government has a policy and craves justification for it? Don’t answer except to avert any explosion that some misunderstanding I may have may have provoked.
From my dealings with politicians, Ministers and bureaucrats, I would agree that policy is largely dictated by the bureaucracy. All responses I get from Ministers have been signed by them, but clearly written by bureaucrats. They are not prepared to provide answers to specific questions, uncomfortable questions or to provide any evidence for what they claim in the responses. On the one occasion when a Minister (Hendry) actually penned some words at the end of a response, it was clear that he hadn't a clue what he was talking about.
Politically-funded science is 'managed' to advances the interests of politicas.
Hardly rocket science, that.
I have known two of the most illustrious CSIRO department heads on a personal basis and I have held the CSIRO in high regard for much of my long life.
Nowadays, not so much.
The real issue is less the heads themselves, but rather who chooses them.
However, we must remember that the CSIRO was dragged, kicking and screeming, into the twenty first century by the various governments then in power.
Governments want the CSIRO to research what the government wants to be researched, to earn a bundle of money by "relevant" research and, Oh! yes.
Government wants to receive the advice that the government wants to hear.
So it's up to us to insist that the government goes back to insist on recieving honest, fearless advice.
The Australian federal election is only a mere matter of a little more than two short years away.
You must have banned Manuel Oliver, he would be straight in with his Eisenhower vid!
It'd be a brave senior (as in position of authority) scientist, to come out with something that means the revenue stream for governments, world wide, will be under threat.
"We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy. If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal."
Might this explain the behaviour of a certain Professor Nick Stokes Bsc, Msc, PhD?
Perhaps, IMO though more likely not. I'm afraid Nick Stokes is a 'no-hoper'. No matter what evidence he is presented with that clearly shows that the Mann Hockey Stick is a political contrivance, he resolutely continues to defend the indefensible.
Sadly, it is typical of most people to 'rage against the machine' in small and surreptitious clusters within any large organisation. It takes real courage, or a don't-give-a-stuff attitude, to break cover and speak out in the full gaze of the organization. As someone who came late to teaching, I have lost count of the number of times I suddenly became a committee of one in general staff meetings when persuaded to speak out by a concerned group of staff members in order to effect a change in some procedure or institutional habit. Not a comfortable place to be, but very satisfying when one has checked facts and felt completely justified in speaking. 'Speaking out' is a practice that is frequently not welcomed by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Alexander K
Well said.
It is a very lonely feeling to look around and find that those who pushed you on to speak up, are now quiet, or worse, are speaking "very reasonably", but quite on the other side.
I've done that, more than once.
Commercial life is not so very different, I'm afraid.
It can be very lonely, explaining that the emperor has no clothes.