The Saturday Paper - Martin McKenzie-Murray
As Larry Marshall signals cuts to various programs, CSIRO staff say he
is either out of his depth or has questionable motives – or both.
When the CSIRO’s chief executive sat down last week to write an
all-staff email – intended for some 5000 people – he knew he had to mix
the good news with the bad. Larry Marshall was restructuring the
90-year-old institution, politically maligned but venerable, and about
350 job losses were slated – a third from those modelling climate
change. But Marshall did not mix the bad news so much as bury it. We
know this because the email was leaked in an angry contravention of
Marshall’s appeal contained at the end of his long missive: “As you
absorb this message I hope you appreciate the intent of treating
everyone in CSIRO as a trusted insider.”
Within days, a besieged Marshall was offering qualifications while
leaks continued from increasingly mutinous staff. “The mood is terrible
and Larry doesn’t have the confidence of most staff,” one employee told
me. “There are two reasons. The redundancies first, and how these are
being handled. But fundamentally, many people are upset because he’s
attacking the values and identity of CSIRO.”
This Wednesday, while Marshall was overseas, staff lodged a dispute with the Fair Work Commission, the industrial arbiter.
Visionary or cowboy?
Dr Larry Marshall began as the CSIRO’s chief executive a little over a
year ago, in January 2015. He had returned to the country of his birth
after spending 25 years in the United States, much of it in and around
California’s Silicon Valley, where he managed tech start-ups and
invested in emerging technologies. He also lodged 20 patents. Marshall
holds a PhD in physics, and describes himself as an entrepreneur and
business leader, as well as a scientist.
“I think he’s targeting anything that has been politically inconvenient.”
Marshall has suggested he is almost uniquely qualified to reimagine
an institution at risk of ineffectiveness and “mediocrity”. A visionary,
a scientist and a businessman. A man as familiar with scientific
discovery as he is with dividends. “I’ve run companies through three
recessions and 9/11,” he told colleagues last week, “and recognise
change can be frightening, but we must embrace it and turn it to our
advantage if we want to flourish.”
But his detractors among CSIRO staff – and there are many – have told
me they see him as a self-aggrandising cowboy with a dangerous
indifference to the values and history of the institution. Is Marshall a
brave “disruptor” – a favourite word of his – or a man unsuited to head
the public body? Or both?
Public storm
Larry Marshall’s leaked email has become the centre of a public
storm. It has been parsed, mocked, qualified. The ruptures within the
CSIRO are about much more than an email, of course, but for his critics
it is an exhibit of his “destructive” hubris. “Marshall’s language is
arrogant and ignorant,” a CSIRO staff member told me, “because he
clearly doesn’t understand some of the science, and is not humble enough
to acknowledge this. People are angry and upset. They’re disgusted by
how he talks about CSIRO. It’s like he has no idea about CSIRO’s history
and culture.”
The email is long. Verbose. It is both impassioned and disorganised,
powered by a great self-assuredness. It enthusiastically surveys areas
of scientific development – big data, clean coal, 3D printing. But the
enthusiasm expresses itself in the language of Silicon Valley – one part
jargon, one part bravado. “Our investment in precision agriculture
combines unique sensors with predictive analytics to help our farming
community respond to climate change, and grow their prosperity,” he
writes.
For all the vision, there is something numbing about Marshall’s
descriptions of health as a “major growth area” and that “keeping
someone healthy has major exponential cost savings”. Of course, none of
this deadened language, favoured by Silicon Valley venture capitalists
and tech gurus, means he is wrong. But it jars with a good portion of
his staff.
Concern about cuts
There has been concern among CSIRO staff about cuts to climate
modelling. Marshall argues that the science of climate change is clear,
and that the organisation must shift to climate “mitigation”. This
debate has dominated reporting on the internal ruptures this week, but
it is far from the only concern. Staff I spoke with suggest Marshall is
fundamentally unsuited to the job because he has disregard for the very
notion of public goods – the research that may not occur within the
private sector because it’s regarded as unprofitable.
“The general trend seems to be that if you’re not making a lot of
money then the research area won’t be supported,” I was told. “One
consequence is that much of the public goods stuff is being targeted …
The competitive advantage of CSIRO is its long-term research.
Developing, over time, the capacity to tackle big problems.”
A spokesperson for CSIRO rejected this, telling me: “Pretty much all
of CSIRO’s research activities includes a ‘public good’ – a benefit to
the Australian public, either directly or indirectly.
“CSIRO’s function under our act is in part to carry out scientific
research to assist Australian industry, further the interests of the
Australian community and to contribute to the achievement of the
Australian national objectives or the performance of the national and
international responsibilities of the Commonwealth. These activities
invariably include public benefits and this is so even in those limited
cases where we do research under an engagement with a customer on a
fully commercial basis.”
Other concerns were shared with me by staff. Some of the CSIRO’s work
involves surveying public attitudes – to climate change, say, or
aspects of mining. The industry jargon is “social licence to operate”,
meaning the broad acceptance of an affected community. CSIRO work also
involves contract-based research for private industry. There is nothing
inherently improper about any of this. Surveying public attitudes is
useful, while contract-based research is conducted independently and
under peer review. The concern of some scientists, however, is that
these arrangements may become corruptible in the future if the pressure
to profit is increased. “Contract work is part and parcel of modern
research and is of course not morally questionable in itself,” a staff
member told me. “For instance, improving acceptance of developments like
mining or coal seam gas isn’t necessarily wrong. But you must make sure
that the governance structures are the right ones so that the
independence can be ensured. Sometimes when you push the need to make
money, there’s an adverse effect on the governance.”
The CSIRO spokesperson said the organisation has strong policies and
procedures in place, “irrespective of whether the research has been
funded by the government or from commercial sources”, and cited the
employment of internal peer review for any report or publication for the
public as a step before submission to review by the broader scientific
community. Regarding “social licence to operate” topics, the
spokesperson said the CSIRO’s research is conducted according to the
National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and must be
approved by an ethics committee.
“We believe this is a critically important contribution we can make
in future,” the spokesperson said. “In addition to peer review, we are
also assuring the independence of our work through appropriate
governance mechanisms.”
But alarm was triggered among some staff when they read Marshall’s
pledge to the resources sector in his email. “Commodities are the
bedrock of our nation,” he wrote, “and we will always support that
industry especially now in times of declining prices when innovation can
fundamentally change the game.”
It struck some as strangely partisan. Staff I spoke with were not
dismissive of mining. They respected its economic importance, but
believed Marshall’s commitment struck a bum note – the CSIRO’s support
of resources should be along purely scientific lines.
It conformed to the suspicions of one scientist I spoke to, who felt
that the axed programs – Liveable, Sustainable and Resilient Cities;
Biodiversity Ecosystems; and Adaptive and Economic Systems – were
politically targeted. “If you read between the lines with some of the
cuts, it’s as if the politically inconvenient areas are being
trimmed,” I was told. “Climate science, social science and biodiversity.
He hasn’t properly explained why these are the areas being targeted.”
The source went on to say Marshall “doesn’t understand social
science. He thinks the future is in hacking Facebook and Twitter pages. I
think he’s targeting anything that has been politically inconvenient or
any research that is perceived to have a left-wing bias.”
When I asked the CSIRO why, in one of the world’s most urbanised
countries, they did not have an urban research program, I was told that
its functions were reflected in other areas. “While there may not be a
specific research program carrying that title, CSIRO’s research does
indeed contribute to the understanding, management and planning of the
urban environment. Research done in any area of CSIRO from manufacturing
to IT has applications to the urban environment.”
Crisis awaits
As I write, Dr Marshall is flying back to Australia. He will arrive
amid crisis. Morale is low and industrial action is being pursued. The
CSIRO spokesperson told me that the organisation will “work at
communicating more clearly and directly to staff, and be clearer about
intentions – it is a cultural change and it is inevitable that not
everybody will be able to make that change”. This might underestimate
the depth of rancour. I spoke with people who were practically
eulogising their institution.
“An outrageous thing here is that this seems to have been a captain’s
call,” a CSIRO staff member said. “I suspect there was no documentation
about cuts and I doubt we will ever find out the real reasons. There
was no consultation. It seems Larry doesn’t want to be limited by the
rules.
“Some think that he’s treating CSIRO as his own private company.
CSIRO is an important and proud national institution. So it’s a very odd
fit. I don’t want CSIRO to be undermined and it needs to be supported
into the future.”
