Early this year, the CSIRO announced a restructure that would see many roles cut, especially those from the Oceans and Atmosphere Division, which is responsible for critical climate research and monitoring.
In the wake of the ensuing outcry, chief executive Dr Larry Marshall began by likening the global response from climate scientists as sounding “more like religion than science”, before later softening his position. The recent announcement of a new Climate Science Centre is the latest update to this ongoing saga.
The creation of the specialist centre means the existing climate science structure at CSIRO will be split into two parts, with 40 researchers to work out of Hobart in partnership with the Bureau of Meteorology. While this means the operations of critical measurement infrastructures, such as Cape Grim and the ARGO float program, will remain intact, the fates of 50 or more climate scientists still hang in the balance.
At the same time, Marshall announced that CSIRO would be shedding fewer jobs than initially announced (275 down from 350), which meant that the organisation would be able to make fewer new hires than previously planned.
Ex-director of the Monash Sustainability Institute at Monash University, Professor Dave Griggs, perhaps described the current situation best in saying: “While the retention of some of CSIRO’s climate science capabilities is welcome, the level announced is abalogous to trying to put a sticking plaster over a gaping wound”.
This statement describes the general consensus of many climate scientists, of whom many agree the level of funding for climate science was already too low prior to the new round of cuts.
Professor Steven Sherwood, ARC laureate fellow and director of the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, drew a comparison with the UK Met Office (on which the CSIRO’s current system is based) to illustrate the widening gap in funding.
“The new CSIRO centre will have only 40 scientists, compared to roughly 200 at the equivalent Hadley Centre in the UK, and much less than the 140 scientists previously working in the broader area at CSIRO,” Sherwood said. “Since the UK GDP is about double that of Australia, this means we are moving from a similar per-capita investment to much lower one.
“It is worth noting that the UK Met Office overall is estimated to have generated at least $6 of economic benefit for the UK per $1 spent on it. So, from a broad perspective, we appear to be downsizing an activity that was probably already underfunded even from a purely economic perspective.”
Other experts’ opinions amount to what may be seen as a vote of no confidence for CSIRO’s new management.
“There are many important questions that remain to be answered, such as ‘how many net jobs will be lost?’ and ‘How well will CSIRO be able to maintain and improve its climate science work?’ Is this decision a face-saver after a disastrous mistake, or does it represent a renewed commitment to understanding climate science?” said Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University, Professor Clive Hamilton. “Under current CSIRO leadership it is sensible to remain sceptical.”
The announcement has drawn broad support from politicians representing the federal government, as well as chief scientist Dr Ken Finkel.