CSIR suppresses science

In news just in this week, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), has muzzled and seems to be victimizing one of its own scientists. I quote from the newspaper article in the Cape Times, available online on IOL:

The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has prevented one of its scientists from delivering the keynote address at its conference in Pretoria.

Dr Anthony Turton, of the CSIR's natural resource and environment unit, was to deliver a 19-page address on water quality, entitled A Clean South Africa, as the keynote address in the CSIR's Science Real and Relevant conference on Tuesday.

On Monday, Turton was told he could not give the address.

"I was told it had been pulled, and I was instructed not to be on the premises. I was given three different reasons by three different people," Turton said.

According to the newspaper article the CSIR alleged that the address was withdrawn because certain statements "could not be sufficiently substantiated". This is doubtful, however, as the address was subjected to a peer review process and no scientific objections were raised.

Reading between the lines, the real reason seems to be reflected in the last paragraph of the newspaper article, which is paraphased from Dr Turton's banned address:

A reason was that funding was from private contracts, not the government, exposing the CSIR to the risk of being "hijacked by private interests".

"We cannot allow this to happen, because (it would erode) science, engineering and technical capacity."

Was Turton's address suppressed at the demand of some corporate sponsors of the CSIR, such as the mining houses that are now strip mining coal from our pristine wetlands in Mpumalanga province? Did his address hit too close to the truth for the greedy mining magnates?

This cartoon (slightly altered) from the Union of Concerned Scientists seems appropriate.

The CSIR describes itself as "... one of the leading scientific and technology research, development and implementation organisations in Africa." What is to be said of its ethics and scientific integrity if it suppresses science and scientists due to pressure from corporate sponsors? Even if its assertion of unsubstantiated statements in Turton's address was true (which I doubt), it should have been left to scientists to deal with the inaccuracies. After all, it is said that science is the only field of human endeavor that is self-correcting.

Consider also the disciplinary action against environmental scientists in Kimberley for opposing greedy developers and corrupts politicians. This pattern of victimisation of scientists by administrators and politicians is unacceptable.