Editorial: Sacking of Salinger a step too far

Opinion

From time to time, it is conceivable that commercial sensitivity may cause crown research institutes to stop scientists expressing themselves freely.

It is inevitable when loose lips could lead to the loss of an important contract. Yet whatever the institutes' involvement in the commercial world, such direction should be a rarity, not the norm.

Certainly, it should not apply to comment as mundane as that on weather patterns or climate science. All of which delivers an air of disbelief to the sacking of Jim Salinger from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).

Dr Salinger's 27-year career as a Government scientist ended abruptly a fortnight ago when he was given 3 hours to clear his desk. He says that he received no formal warning and no criticism of his work. But on three occasions he had talked to media organisations without proper approval.

His dismissal is now the subject of a personal grievance case. Niwa has said nothing, other than all staff apart from chief scientists and some senior scientists must get permission from both the media team and a member of the senior science staff before speaking.

Other issues that may have led to the dismissal have not been referred to, even though Niwa has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

It is possible to argue that even the criterion offered by Niwa would seem to exempt Dr Salinger. In Herald reports, he was routinely referred to as Niwa principal scientist or a senior climate scientist. No one from the institute's media team appears to have complained that this was inaccurate. His background clearly warranted such titles.

In an area in which there is no great talent pool in this country, he was very well-credentialled. Among other things, his expertise helped an international group of scientists to which he belongs, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to share the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former American Vice-President Al Gore.

Niwa also had good reason to value his relationship with the media. Not all scientists would have wanted to promote the institute's profile with quite his vigour and enthusiasm. Nor would they have been so readily accessible or have the same common touch.

This proved invaluable in getting across important weather information to the public, not least in relation to Niwa's contract with Television New Zealand. Nothing was particularly contentious or wrong in his commentaries. Nor was there anything truly controversial about his warnings on global warming.

Much of the comment about Dr Salinger's sacking has focused on an allegedly repressive atmosphere within the crown research institutes.

The Association of Scientists has said "scientific research and corporate models operating under commercial imperatives have been unhappy bedfellows since the science reforms in the early 1990s". Comparisons have also been drawn with universities, whose staff are not only encouraged to speak freely but have a duty to the community to do so.

There is no reason the same approach should not apply at crown research institutes for the vast majority of the time. Commercial imperatives and freedom of speech are not so inimical that media minders need to rule on every public utterance, even the routine. The media, for their part, should have the right to speak to the scientist of their choice, not a dull, uninteresting voice put forward by an institute's PR department.

Clearly, matters have gone too far when scientists speak of fleeing institutes because of the draconian rules. And they have gone way too far when a scientist who is, arguably, Niwa's top asset is dismissed for what, according to the institute itself, is a matter of the utmost triviality.