- Bishop Hill blog

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.