Climate scientists censored by Governments

Two strikingly similar cases have recently emerged, one in the US and one in Australia, concerning chief climate scientists claiming that they have been censored because their views are not in line with Government policy. Given President Bush and Prime Minister Howard ‘s position on global warming, it is no surprise that scientists providing evidence against the Government’s would be frowned upon, but the revelation that they were pressured not to speak at all is startling and deeply troubling.

The CSIRO case involves three leading climate change experts who told a Four Corners report that they were advised by superiors that it would best if they didn’t release material which disagreed with Government policy on carbon emissions. The scientists have since left the CSIRO, but believe that an environment of censorship, and self-policing are still common within the organisation. While the threats have usually originated from officials within the organisation, the scientists believe that the pressure was most likely from Government sources. CSIRO management deny the claims and Environment Minister Ian Campbell is adamant that the Government would never seek to stifle debate. In addition to these claims of censorship, funding for renewable energy sources has been dramatically cut, and two energy industry executives have been appointed to the CSIRO’s board. Not exactly a receptive environment for those espousing views counter to the Government’s.

The US case parallels the Australian one, with NASA climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, claiming in a New York Times interview earlier this year, that he has been censored for his views on global warming. He adds: “In my more than three decades in the government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now." Dr. Hansen has been openly critical of the Bush Administration’s current approach to global warming, arguing that there are various affordable measures, currently available, which could be introduced to reduce carbon emissions. Given that part of NASA’s mission statement is to “understand and protect our home planet,” Dr. Hansen says it would be irresponsible if they were to restrict information inline with that aim. He also claims that climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have been told to keep quiet on global warming. Both NASA and the NOAA deny the claims, responding that they have always encouraged an open and honest reporting policy.

Commentators have suggested that Hansen’s concerns are evidence of bureaucratic overreach, rather than a concerted attempt at censorship by the Whitehouse. One such bureaucrat was George Deutsch, a former Bush campaign employee who was then employed as a public affairs official at NASA so that he could “make the President look good.” In addition to monitoring Dr. Hansen’s correspondence, Deutsch also tried to alter NASA media releases in order to water down the science and acknowledge “Intelligent Design.” He has since resigned after it was revealed that he lied on his resume. Dr. Hansen believes that this is but one example of the problems scientists from all disciplines face as they try inform and educate the public.

These two cases point towards a disturbing trend in the way science is treated by Government. Rather than listening to the advice of its scientists, the US and Australian Governments prefer to create policy in line with their corporate interests, and then find scientists willing to back them up, silencing those who won’t. This is a continuation of the Australian government’s approach to a variety of issues, where it picks and chooses the knowledge it receives and then feigns innocence when its revealed that it should have known better. We must demand more of our ministers; we must demand that they obtain unbiased evidence and then make considered and informed policy decisions. Given that science is an important factor in debates on pollution, GM foods, reproductive health, stem cell research, and of course climate change it is essential that the most accurate information is offered and provided to policy makers.

Organisations which rely on Government funding for their operations will always be wary of advocating or pursuing a line of evidence which would reflect badly on the Government. In the same way the ABC has always faced the battle of criticizing a Government which pays its wages, the CSIRO occupies a difficult position. The Government would be arrogant to issue direct orders not to have certain scientific papers published, but if they have the final say on which research grants are approved then it would seem reasonable to presume that scientists would feel that certain comments could not be made for fear of losing that funding.

The current atmosphere of fear and intimidation where scientists are reluctant to present evidence which may disagree with the Government policy must be rectified immediately. In Australia, Labor has called for an investigation, and the CSIRO have also indicated they will be pursuing the matter. In the US, various senators on both side of politics have called for a review and NASA’s director emailed the entire staff to restate that a culture of openness is to be supported. We can only hope that scientists follow the lead of Dr. Hansen et al., and speak out against such dangerous forms of censorship.

This article appears in Melbourne University's Student Newspaper Farrago, Edition 2, 2006