Full-time science advisor wanted down under

During the six years that Robin Batterham served as Chief Scientist of Australia, from 1999 until last month, he weathered repeated accusations that his independence was sullied by conflicts of interest. Perhaps that perception was unsurprising, considering Batterham served his country on a part-time basis. Two days a week, he advised the national government on its research priorities and policy; the rest of the time he worked as chief technologist for the mining giant, Rio Tinto.All that came to an end in May, when Batterham announced he was resigning from the government post to work for Rio Tinto on a full-time basis. Batterham told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) that he quit for two reasons. "One, government and everyone else in Australia has got science and innovation much more on its agenda than it was six years ago," he says. "So to some extent I think I can step out of the scene knowing that things are at a much higher level than they were before. And then secondly, there's some terrific challenges in Rio Tinto at the moment, and I really want to put full-time effort into that, rather than the part time that I've been doing for the last six years."It was that kind of duality that had angered some opposition politicians during Batterham's stint. Although he insisted that he had maintained a "firewall" between his work for Rio Tinto and his government job, the perception of a conflict of interest remained. For example, Green Party Senator Bob Brown claimed last July that the chief scientist's opposition to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol "highlights his conflict of interest."Those concerns culminated last year in a parliamentary inquiry, whose subsequent report described potential and apparent conflicts of interest arising from the chief scientist's dual roles that had "undermined public confidence." The inquiry found no evidence that Batterham had "behaved inappropriately or improperly as chief scientist."Nevertheless, the inquiry recommended that the job become a full-time position and that future chief scientists be governed by public servant accountability rules. The Greens then called for Batterham to resign one of his two posts, citing his position as "untenable."At an Australian Academy of Science meeting on science and ethics in late May, microbiologist and virologist Frank Fenner said that future chief scientists "should be full-time appointments and shouldn't have double jobs," according to an ABC news report. "I've sat on the [prime minister's] committee with Batterham and he runs that committee very well, but he's got two jobs and he's got a conflict of interest which he just can't help having," Fenner said.Bradley Smith, executive director of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS), which represents some 60,000 scientists and technologists, agreed. "We've always argued that the position should be full time," he says. The major reason is that only a full-time post could meet government need for access to high-level advice on science and technology. "A second reason is that of conflict of interest, although anyone in the position has a potential for conflict of interest, part-time or not, and it is naive to think that making the position full time would solve the problem," Smith says.FASTS is not opposed to the idea of Batterham's replacement having strong industry ties. "We would prefer that anyone who gets the job is alive to the issues facing both academic and commercial science," Smith says. "The question is how you manage apparent, potential, or other conflicts of interest and ensure transparency."

Full-time science advisor wanted down under

During the six years that Robin Batterham served as Chief Scientist of Australia, from 1999 until last month, he weathered repeated accusations that his independence was sullied by conflicts of interest.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of