The CSIRO’s decision to sack about 120 climate scientists was motivated by an intention to move some of the organisation’s focus from science done in the public good towards science that makes money, internal emails suggest.

The internal decision-making process behind the CSIRO’s decision to cut its climate research has been revealed in a 700-page document dump, delivered as part of a Greens-Labor inquiry into federal government budget cuts. Many key emails sent from private accounts were not included in the disclosure, but the documents reveal a shopping-list of controversial internal decisions.

In March CSIRO executives told a Senate committee the organisation was not moving away from “public-good science”, but the emails appear to cast doubt on that assertion.

They show one of the central reasons climate science could not continue to make money for the CSIRO was the federal government’s decision to cut grants for environmental research.

They also contain a detailed analysis of all the climate research capabilities that would be scrapped, as well as surprisingly callous language in discussions about which researchers would be made redundant, with remarks from managers referring to employees’ age, their work hours and how strong their union links were.

In November 2015, the CSIRO leadership began a “deep dive” into the oceans and atmosphere business unit, which houses most of the CSIRO’s researchers that focus on monitoring and modelling climate change.

On 21 November, before a meeting at which that investigation was discussed, the deputy director of the oceans and atmosphere business unit, Andreas Schiller, sent an email summarising what CSIRO executives thought ought to be done.

The focus should be to “maximise impact on nation”, he said, and “not doing science for science sake”. He said “public good is not good enough, [it] needs to be linked to jobs and growth”.

The scientists who work on climate science at the CSIRO are among the global leaders in their field, regularly publishing research in journals such as Nature and Science. But Schiller wrote: “Nature papers alone don’t cut it.”

In March Alex Wonhas, the executive director of environment, energy and resources, told the Senate inquiry public good research was not being cut: “I want to categorically say that is not the case ... Public good research has been the absolute foundation of what the CSIRO has been doing over our very long history.”

But on 18 January, about two weeks before the cuts were announced, Schiller wrote to the director of the unit saying they should aim to cut 120 staff. That would “allow a clean cut in terms of eliminating all capability associated with ‘public good/government-funded climate research’”.

A draft plan from 19 February for the implementation of the restructure explored the impact of 100 redundancies and another 15 contracts that would be ended early in the oceans and atmosphere unit, and listed all the capabilities that would be affected. It included decisions that:

Research in “variability and weather extremes” would be reduced

Multi-year climate modelling and analysis would go: “We will no longer conduct research into multi-year, multi-decadal prediction, seasonal forecasting and impacts”

The organisation “will discontinue research in sea level rise, which means reduced scientific capability”

The CSIRO is “ceasing our research in greenhouse gas emissions”.

The first deep-dive process had produced a suggestion to cut 35 climate scientists and redeploy them in other areas.

But Schiller said if they aimed for fewer cuts, “we will inevitably face the problem of keeping some of the climate scientists”.

Ken Lee, director of the oceans and atmosphere unit, responded: “I agree – let’s overshoot first.”

The documents suggest the decision to shift focus was coming from chief executive Larry Marshall and others at the top of the organisation.

In an email from Mark Underwood, a research program director in the oceans and atmosphere unit, to Lee on 24 November 2015, Underwood noted that publications in important science journals “are (for better or worse) now being deprecated by Larry Marshall, Alex Wonhas and other [executive team] members”.

In the discussion notes from the deep-dive process, it is clear what has caused the shift in focus: “Changes in government funding for climate research ... have impacted [two climate research groups] who have traditionally relied on these funds to shore up their pipeline.”



In another document, the rationale for cutting back on climate science is explicitly linked to the amalgamation of two government funding programs. The document identifies that “climate change research” and “global sea-level rise” research would be affected.

On 15 January, weeks before the announcement was made, discussions began about who would lose their jobs. Lee wrote to Wonhas suggesting that those who would be made redundant should be told their fate from the start.

“Otherwise, all staff will be left wondering ‘Is it I?’ – productivity of the whole [business unit] will drop to zero. I’ve done this before. By not doing so, our top scientists will leave – as they are in demand; as well as post-docs who are looking for future opportunities within our organisation.”

But that practice appeared to be abandoned, with staff still not aware of who will be made redundant. In an email on 25 February, Peter Oke, an acting director in the oceans and atmosphere unit, defended that course of action. A staff member said: “The feeling is that, if there were even a rudimentary understanding of what we do, then the plan as put forward appears rushed, and illogical. This is further magnified by the fact that management is only now thinking about the full ramification and is not yet able to end the uncertainty.”

Oke replied: “Consider the alternative. There’s an announcement that there are 100 FTEs [full-time equivalent positions] lost and here’s a list. Or … there are 100 FTEs lost, and our leadership team will try to figure out the best way to retain a workforce that can function properly and deliver impact.”

When the managers began talking about which researchers could be made redundant, they discussed the employees’ ages, and whether they were working full-time or part-time.



One person mentioned was “approaching 60” and it was noted they could be transferred to another business unit. Another possibility was someone who “has increasingly gone part-timed [sic] not producing much”.

Another person was listed with the note “considering retiring but has strong union links”.

CSIRO spokesperson Huw Morgan said the options discussed in the documents were put forward at an early stage and were not all current, nor were they ultimately adopted.

Morgan said “public-good research” still had a key role within the organisation and the emails quoted were just a small selection of the more than 700 documents provided by the CSIRO to the Senate inquiry.

“Research for national benefit absolutely belongs in CSIRO, as it has done for almost a century. This is CSIRO’s mandate and that has not changed,” Morgan said.

“Our new strategy will see us continue to deliver research outcomes that benefit Australians and the international community. This includes in our key focus areas such as cybersecurity and digital disruption, business transformation, agriculture, health, and climate adaptation and mitigation.

“We have to make decisions about where we should invest our budget and we do this with a view to what Australia needs most. The Australian economy is in transition and CSIRO has a critical role to play in preparing people for climate change and for things like digital disruption that will change the way they work and live.”

A senior researcher in the oceans and atmosphere unit told Guardian Australia CSIRO executives were rethinking some of the plans after the enormous international response to the cuts. That reaction included hundreds of climate scientists signing a petition, a front-page story in the New York Times and a report arguing the cuts would breach international commitments.

In earlier comments, Marshall said the response was surprising and was “more like religion than science”. He said the climate science lobby appeared more powerful than the oil lobby was in the 1970s. Marshall later apologised for any offence caused by those comments.



“We appreciate this can be an uncertain and challenging period for affected staff and remain committed to supporting staff throughout this process,” he said.