|
Going somewhat broader than the original post (as that seems to be where the thread has gone, i.e. commenting on free speech vs specific instance).
Lots of things to balance, especially in the world of the internet and media pervasiveness where perception often equals reality for many folk, especially if not prepared to do a little reading and detective work of their own.
I would hazard to say that all institutions have fun trying to balance strong minded individuals with their associated opinions from what is an unfortunate necessity for a balanced institution line (as it were). Further, said strong minded individuals may also wish to advance a particular cause that is perhaps unhelpful at the time for whatever reason (i.e. lots of factors to be considered).
Before pitch forks come out remember a few things:
- CSIRO is an academic institution of a sort but not in the same sense as a university, therefore its structure and arrangements are not the same. Indeed I suspect universities are not necessarily the bastions of pure rational debate that they once (if ever?) were due to the various pressures they are also under.
- If you are an expert in a field, gainfully employed by a particular institution, and well published in the field in question (as opposed to reading a few papers and spending 6 months thinking about things) then surely your opinion will more than likely line up with the institutions' opinion (admittedly not guaranteed).
- While institutions such as CSIRO are partially public funded and our tax dollars do go to them, they are answerable to the public via the politically process and constitutional/legal structures not via us knocking on their door directly. In other words, the funding from the government (that we elect) comes with a certain level of strings attached.
What happens when a reporter, finding out Person X is an expert, rings them up for an opinion about a topic within which their expertise resides. Now what can happen is that X makes a statement that is then subsequently taken as the Institution's particular opinion about a topic. This leap is not automatic (except to the reporter and the public) and has the potential to place the institution in a very difficult position or may imply a commitment to some course that is not necessarily appropriate or true - leading to subsequent chasing up by the press saying why did you not do ABC? Either way the institution is on a hiding to nothing.
Here is a pragmatic view:
When you work for an institution, on their time, drawing their paycheque, well do not be surprised that they feel they have some claim over IP and some sense of needing to check what you may do or say whilst under their banner. If you do not like this, then do not draw the pay and find someone or somewhere that allows you to pursue the approach you wish. I wish you all the luck in the world in finding such a place. I would hazard to say it is your own home and you'll have to pay yourself and find reputable journals that will accept, for the author's address, personal home addresses as compared to some form of institution affiliation.
|