4 ms·
Having met a few at CSIRO, I'd tend to accept that they're real science-y scientists, meaning that they've never really had cause to be labelled as having stron
by cmroanirgo 7y ago
Having met a few at CSIRO, I'd tend to accept that they're real science-y scientists, meaning that they've never really had cause to be labelled as having strong political bias... But that's just my subjective word.
That said, all science is subject to bias according to its funding, particularly if not readily reproducible.
The CSIRO is an org that garners public and private funding.
From the narrative :
> This study was published in the US Geophysical Research Letters journal and was funded by CSIRO's Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water Australia.
So, self funded with a few other gov interests thrown in. Is this enough to invalidate findings? Only if not reproducible... But has anyone tried?
- crispinb 7y agoPossible problems sometimes cited re CSIRO aren't so much to do with bias, as political pressure from above - similarly to the way the Aus Treasury has been corrupted by the present federal gov. A recent example from the media IIRC was them being given a single afternoon to sign off on the Adani groundwater management plan. It's a matter of what they are allowed to do (and report on) & under what conditions.