An appalling act of censorship: Turton and the CSIR

[NameOfBeast]

The Top Brass at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) didn't like some of the slides Dr Anthony Turton wanted to include with his key-note address to its conference "Science Real and Relevant" on November 18. Turton's paper is entitled "Three Strategic Water Quality Challenges That Decision-Makers Need To Know About And How The CSIR Should Respond".

So they ordered him to withdraw the slide presentation. And then suspended their leading researcher on water and political science because he "elected to engage with the media on the matter of the withdrawal of his presentation ... in contravention of organizational policy" despite his denial that it was he who had made it available to the media.

By doing so the CSIR is guilty of an appalling act of censorship reminiscent of the Nationalist Party's apartheid era.

Why appalling? Because the CSIR is a public institution substantially financed by South African taxpayers who are entitled to know the results of its scientists' research. Particularly when they sound warning bells, as Turton does, over the increasing contamination of their drinking water. More broadly South Africa's nascent democracy needs to encourage and protect the right of free speech and free assembly. That's why they are guaranteed in the Constitution.

Unfortunately, according to Turton, the CSIR's ability to address the unintended consequences of the way the country's water resources have been utilized has been impaired by a shift from being financed by grants to a mix of grants and contracts. That has had "a catastrophic effect on our science, engineering and technology (SET) capacity..... Our need for technological solutions is growing exponentially while our capacity to create those solutions is declining exponentially. Private funding removes that science from the public domain by placing contractual restrictions on both its scope and dissemination".

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=111573&sn=Detail

 

[R13...]

i think the story on both sides of this debacle must be taken with a heavy helping of salt. you should read chris barron's so many questions from the sunday times where he interviews the csir's ceo.

the ceo does make some good points about why the pulled the presentation. looks like the good prof was trying to play on emotion & politics on what was supposed to be a scientific subject.

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

@ larrychang - Doesn't change the fact that the general consensus from those in the field is that our water standards are getting worse.

 

[<moLe>]

censorship is always bad....

 

[R13...]

actuallythe csir ceo admits that there is a problem with our water quality.
the point he's making is that being a scientific organisation the csir can't go around making wild unproven claims without the necessary research. he says that's the job of activisim - and i agree with him.

 

[Telkomisaloser]

 

[blunomore]

I listened to an interview with the CSIR's CEO on 702 and in his defence (and Lord knows, he needs one!!) he did make some very valid points.

He 100% admitted that SA has a big water problem, but he was opposed to the fact that Turton included slides depicting xenophobic violence and deformed children in his presentation.

 

[R13...]

He 100% admitted that SA has a big water problem, but he was opposed to the fact that Turton included slides depicting xenophobic violence and deformed children in his presentation.

the good prof was being alarmist.

 

[dlk001]

Indeed, the CSIR CEO Dr. Sibusiso Sibisi admitted to the water challenges. In fact, its documented on Sep/Oct issue of "Water and Sanitation" Journal. The Journal focuses on SA Water Utilities, looks into current and future challenges of our utilities.

 

[pos(t)er]

Yea after reading through some articles i got the feeling there might have been something to why they censored it(the presentation.) Anyway if you want to see the actual scienctific article Turton based his presentation on, it's freely available on the CSIR's website.

 

[stoke]

Indeed, the CSIR CEO Dr. Sibusiso Sibisi admitted to the water challenges. In fact, its documented on Sep/Oct issue of "Water and Sanitation" Journal. The Journal focuses on SA Water Utilities, looks into current and future challenges of our utilities.

Were the same problems listed in last years publication at all, or was all the woohaa about censorship actually the catalyst that got the "facts" published?

 

[NameOfBeast]

Right or wrong, hear Turton out: BusinessDay letter

All valid points above; here is a letter from today's BD:

Muller’s primary criticism is that Turton was trained in politics, and so should not be treated seriously when he deals with scientific matters. This is nonsense. There are hundreds of social scientists who study what the pure scientists have found, and interpret those findings for the benefit of a wider audience. Many have some scientific training. Some, like Turton, do not, but that does not mean they do not understand the issues involved.

The debate on subjective views must not be suppressed. And this is the absolute mistake of the CSIR directorate. Turton’s paper had some very strong claims.

If those claims are correct, then we have a major problem, and need to address it. Saying, as the CSIR did, that some of his claims could not be “sufficiently substantiated” overlooks the fact that his was a subjective presentation. Saying, as the CSIR did, that some of the images might have offended some people was a cretinous response — if you don’t like them, shut your eyes. Anything more is pure censorship.

For the record, I believe that some of Turton’s assessment of the science is wrong — but this is not the place for that debate. I have read what he wrote, and I fully support his right to say it.

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A897438

 

[Albereth]

He 100% admitted that SA has a big water problem, but he was opposed to the fact that Turton included slides depicting xenophobic violence and deformed children in his presentation.

I saw the xenophobic violence pic but don't remember any with deformed children.

 

[fskmh]

I went and downloaded the PDF* to see what all the fuss was about and I was a little taken aback by the picture of xenophobic violence on page 6. I think Turton's arguments were valid enough and did not need the additional shock value. I also suspect the picture had more to do with the censorship than the actual content, because our politicians do not like being reminded of the xenophobic violence of 2008. I just hope it doesn't divert too much attention from the serious issues raised in this report.

*http://www.mg.co.za/uploads/keynoteaddresscsir2008.pdf