The Story of the CSIRO’s Sacked GE Critic
This week, ABC television program “Australian Story” told the story of Dr Maarten Stapper, one of Australia’s leading specialists on organic farming. It’s an insight into how public interest science is being undermined by vested interest.
Dr Stapper worked for the CSIRO for 23 years before he was sacked for criticising genetically engineered (GE) crops. He claims that senior CSIRO management bullied and harassed him in an effort to gag his criticisms of GE crops. He was forced to leave in March 2007, when his position with CSIRO’s plant industry division was made redundant.
“I could have continued working for the CSIRO but I would have to give up all my beliefs about good agriculture and keep my mouth shut about GE,” Stapper said. “I didn’t want that because I have a connection with the farming community and they trust me.”
It’s not the only time the CSIRO has been accused of gagging it scientists. Earlier this year, a group of CSIRO senior climate scientists reportedly defied a CSIRO gag order preventing them from speaking out on Australia’s proposed greenhouse reduction targets. Similar accusations were levelled at the CSIRO in 2006.
Stories like these raise serious questions about the relationship between the CSIRO and its funders. Researchers at the CSIRO and universities across Australia have become increasingly reliant on industry funding. This has resulted in the gradual erosion of science for the public good in favour of science for corporate profit.
Did I mention vested interest? The CSIRO has a number of patents on GE crops, as well as strategic partnerships with several GE crop companies. The strong reach of biotechnology companies into the research community does not bode well for public interest science. A survey of US scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health funded saw 15.5% of respondents admitting they had changed the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source, while 12.5% admitted overlooking others’ use of flawed data. The surveys findings are consistent with a number of recent studies that found industry funding distorts research priorities, methods and conclusions.
Claims that Dr Stapper was sacked because of his views on GE have been rejected by the CSIRO. However, the assistant chief of plant industry, Dr Mark Peoples, admitted that a mediator was used in 2004 to resolve a dispute between Dr Stapper and the then head of the plant industry division, Dr Jim Peacock. Dr Peacock has referred to opponents of genetic engineering as “unprincipled minorities” who spread false facts and hype.
We’ll let you be the judge.
Related links
» Video: Watch the Australian Story episode on Dr Stapper.
» Article: “CSIRO ‘dumps’ anti-GM expert”, The Age
» Article: “GM critics ignorant, says chief scientist”, The Age
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
I sense a deep distrust of scientists in this paragraph from the above article…
“Did I mention vested interest? The CSIRO has a number of patents on GE crops, as well as strategic partnerships with several GE crop companies. The strong reach of biotechnology companies into the research community does not bode well for public interest science. A survey of US scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health funded saw 15.5% of respondents admitting they had changed the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source, while 12.5% admitted overlooking others’ use of flawed data. The surveys findings are consistent with a number of recent studies that found industry funding distorts research priorities, methods and conclusions.”
This alarming snapshot of the motives, ethics and morals of researchers in the GE area has dire consequences for the perception of scientists in general. In a different field of study, but one no less important, that of global warming: if scientists can be so easily swayed by the commercial interests of their employer, can they not also be swayed by receiving funding and support from governments and other bodies publicly committed to proving AGW such as, dare I say it … environmental groups? What about peer pressure? We all know how hard it is to go up against the prevailing paradigm.
I find this article disturbing on so many fronts.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
It’s a shame I missed the show because it sounds interesting.
I can see where you’re coming from, Steve, but can you seriously suggest that the influence non-profit groups might have on scientists is anything near comparable to the influence of funding and sponsorship?
I studied in a very different discipline, namely law, and during the cuts that were made to high education under the Howard Government. Universities were encouraged to be entrepreneurial and attract private dollars in lieu of public funding. Even at a law school, it impacted the administration’s choices about where to invest money and time, and what approach to take. It wasn’t environmental groups that were buying up blocks of university grounds, but companies.
I seem to recall that university research institutes were encouraged to take advantage of the economic benefits of our patent system as an alternative, non-government source of funding.
Science is a lot like law in that its integrity is incredibly important. Of course, many groups whether corporate or non-profit attempt to use the legal system to achieve outcomes they want … hell, most people do. But, the legal system isn’t there to serve the interest of a particular group, organisation or company. Lofty tho it may sound, it’s there to serve a greater interest. Law loses its legitimacy and integrity once it becomes subject to private/vested interest.
It’s no less true of science. And I’m sure you’d agree with this because you’re obviously concerned and alarmed by how the view expressed in the ABC program may reflect on scientists and their integrity. But, perhaps the threat to the perception of scientists is actually the rather dodgy and blurred lines between the public good and private interest.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:39 am
I agree, Betina, the line between public good and private interest can be dodgy, and that’s what worries me. The amount of money directed at Climate Change research by government is, by what I read, phenominal. The funding provided by environmental groups is, of course, significantly less, but comes attached with a sense of moral purity, a ’save the world philosophy’ that possibly has a greater influence on individual motivation than mere money.
The problem as I see it is that the type of research being conducted is based on the assumption (publically held by government and environmental groups alike) that global warming is primarily caused by human activity and, unsurprisingly, that is what most of the findings support.
The criticism leveled at the GE scientists in the above article can just as easily be levelled at AGW researchers.