Thanks for starting this lively discussion Allan.
Firstly an apology to PeterM. I may have gone a bit over the top in defending my views - I didn't intend to get personal in my comments and believe we are intelligent enough to distinguish the personal character from view/opinions and you seem like a good person to me. We can be passionate about where we live.. I guess that is in human nature.
We all have a right to be wrong sometimes.
This discussion taught me the value of dispassionate debate. Questioning assumptions of others is valuable. Questioning one's own assumptions is equally valuable.
The discussion about free speech got sidetracked somewhat into a CC/GW debate.
To address your point Allan, I guess organisations do have some right to influence what their employees/agents/assignees say to the public as it may reflect on that organisation. There can be a danger however that politicians or people in power may cherry-pick the answers from the scientists who support their position and ignore the views that don't fit their own agenda at the time.
I would like to see research bodies like CSIRO decoupled from political influence if possible. Our lively discussion here shows why. We are human and can get caught up in our own beliefs and passions.. That is why it is important to let scientists present what they believe are facts, even if contrary to government agendas.
The peer review process has many merits in this regard. Perhaps a balance could be struck this way? Ie. scientists could publish their opinions to peer-review bodies who could then echo sentiments borne-out by established facts. (I guess the tricky part would be establishing a truly independent peer-review body..) Otherwise, personal opinions could be expressed outside of work through free press / internet (again tricky as I guess the scientist would need to disclaim that the view expressed were their own and not the organisation who might employ them)...
Just some thoughts. Thanks again Allan et all.
Chris
