Chapter 3Challenges
3.1As a world-leading multidisciplinary scientific institution, CSIRO is central to solving Australia’s biggest and most important scientific and technological challenges. However, this inquiry revealed significant threats to its mission. Beyond the question of a level of funding that many consider inadequate and unreliable, it also faces rising costs of maintaining a highly specialised workforce and substantial infrastructure footprint, alongside broader inflationary pressures in the research sector.
3.2This chapter summarises the many challenges CSIRO currently faces and considers the flow-on effects of these current constraints, such as loss of talent (in particular, early and mid-career researchers) and the reductions of breadth and depth of research that CSIRO can perform.
Budgetary constraints
3.3CSIRO’s submission detailed how recent budgetary constraints have impacted staff funding and capital investments, compounded by the rising costs of conducting research.
3.4CSIRO explained that the reduction in its appropriate funding in real terms over a period of many years, as discussed in Chapter 2, combined with ongoing cost increases, has led to ‘significant sustainability challenges for the organisation’.
3.5Dr Doug Hilton, CSIRO’s Chief Executive, summarised this in his appearance before the committee:
It's important to emphasise that the challenges to CSIRO's financial sustainability have accumulated over generations and have now reached a critical point. They are driven by a range of factors, including the growing costs of maintaining and operating an ageing and sprawling property portfolio—and I'd say also an incredibly complicated property portfolio, and a number of witnesses have talked to the complexity of managing science infrastructure—and also the sharp increases in the costs of doing science.
3.6Many submitters urged increased funding to CSIRO to prevent job cuts and cover the up-lift required to CSIRO’s infrastructure, as well as indexing CSIRO’s funding to prevent its decline in real terms.
Nature of recent and proposed job and program cuts
November 2025 job cuts
3.7In November 2025, CSIRO announced changes to is research direction, which would possibly impact 300 to 350 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. CSIRO’s research units and the impact on these units of job losses are shown below in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1Potential staffing impacts by research unit
| | | |
Environment | 701 | 130–150 | 18–21 per cent |
Health and Biosecurity | 345 | 100–110 | 29–32 per cent |
Agriculture and Food | 638 | 45–55 | 7–9 per cent |
Mineral Resources | 365 | 25–35 | 7–10 per cent |
Source: CSIRO, Submission 30, p. 59.
3.8According to CSIRO’s submission, and reflected in the above table, the largest impact from these job losses would be felt in the Health and Biosecurity Unit, with a potential impact to its FTE jobs of between 29 and 32 per cent. The Environment Research Unit (ERU), CSIRO’s largest research unit in both staff numbers and expenditure, has the largest potential job losses, although these losses would constitute a smaller percentage loss to their total FTE positions.
3.9According to CSIRO’s submission, decisions about changes to CSIRO’s research direction were based on a range of criteria, rather than on the relative size of each research unit. Its submission stated:
…the prioritisation of research does require making choices. In order to focus CSIRO’s research capacity on priority areas, a reduction of capability that does not target and cannot be deployed to those areas is necessary. While the specifics of the potential impacts on projects and staffing are not yet known and subject to consultation with staff, the proposed changes to the research direction for the Environment Research Unit are focussed on better integrating science across disciplines to more effectively address critical national challenges and deliver maximum science impact.
3.10Regarding job losses and changes to priorities for the ERU, CSIRO’s submission stated that this Unit ‘will have an ongoing but more targeted focus on the climate science that delivers actionable climate intelligence to support adaptation and/or mitigation measures and inform government policy.’
3.11CSIRO also made the point that there were multiple programs outside the ERU which delivered research on energy transition, climate change and environmental issues.
3.12A large number of submitters raised concerns about effects of CSIRO’s cost-cutting measures, both to CSIRO in general, as well as impacts of the specific losses within the ERU.
3.13The CSIRO Staff Association noted that over the past year CSIRO has ‘experienced a total of 818 announced job losses, with a further 350 positions flagged for redundancy as of 18 November 2025’.
3.14The CSIRO Staff Association provided the following details of job losses prior to the November 2025 announcement:
over 400 science support roles lost;
120 jobs cut from Data61, the CSIRO’s digital and data division, being roughly 20 per cent of its workforce;
reduction of 30 jobs from the Agriculture and Food Research Unit, 43 from Health and Biosecurity, and 5 from Manufacturing Research;
76 jobs lost from Information Management and Technology Client Services, part of the CSIRO’s Enterprise Services team; and
active research programs to be reduced from approximately 95 to between 50 and 75.
3.15The CSIRO Staff Association also noted that 19 per cent of Programs of Research would not be progressing. According to feedback provided to the CSIRO Staff Association, employees of CSIRO had ‘expressed serious concerns about the lack of transparency and consultation surrounding the newly proposed Programs of Research,’ and key decisions about new Programs of Research appear to have been made without external reviews or input from existing research areas.
3.16Appearing at a public hearing for the inquiry, Ms Susan Tonks, Section Secretary of the CSIRO Staff Association, stated that while some of the job losses would include staff on term contracts, not all losses would be of contracted employees. She went on to say that feedback from staff indicated that job losses could be much higher than 350 FTE positions.
3.17Dr Stephen Rintoul, a Delegate of the CSIRO Staff Association, related that his work area had recently been part of consultation regarding job cuts and described staff as ‘devastated’, particularly due to their high commitment to CSIRO’s work. Within his own workgroup, Dr Rintoul stated that there had been three resignations within the last month with staff deciding their careers would be better off outside CSIRO.
Increasing costs
3.18One of the main pressures currently impacting CSIRO is increased costs. According to CSIRO’s submission:
The impact of increasing costs has impacted CSIRO’s research capacity and led to an underinvestment in property, scientific and research infrastructure and equipment, information technology, digital technologies and cyber security. CSIRO’s ability to meet climate resilience and energy efficiency targets across its extensive ageing property portfolio has also been constrained by increasing costs.
3.19These cost increases include:
research labour;
repairs and maintenance to CSIRO’s property portfolio;
physical and digital enabling infrastructure; and
maintaining, operating and replacing research infrastructure, plants and equipment.
3.20According to its submission, CSIRO has attempted to address these increasing costs through efficiencies and cost-saving measures in non-research areas of its work, through self-funding the consolidation of property and finding additional funding sources for some capital. These mitigations are now ‘close to exhausted’ and CSIRO must further reduce costs in order to increase investment in its infrastructure, both physical and digital.
3.21The impact of CSIRO being unable to fully invest in its infrastructure due to increasing costs has led to the deterioration of its property and scientific infrastructure, as well as inadequate information and digital technologies for its needs. The committee was advised that this deterioration has resulted in increasing risks to health, safety and security for its staff, as well as a more general reduction in Australian national science capacity. CSIRO estimated it requires at least $80 million to $135million per annum for the next decade, in addition to the loss of 300 to 350FTE staff, in order to address the impacts of these increasing costs.
Labour costs
3.22Rising labour costs represent a significant burden for CSIRO, driven at least in part by its highly specialised workforce. With approximately 4,250 staff across its research units and 40 per cent holding a PhD, CSIRO’s personnel requirements reflect the advanced nature of the organisation’s scientific output.
3.23Labour expenditure for CSIRO has increased by 24 per cent over the last five years, from $796 million to $987 million, reflective of increasing staff levels due to the COVID budget measure ‘JobMaker’, as well as an increase in wages over the wage costs index (approximately 11.4 per cent). CSIRO’s submission noted that, despite this increase, wages for senior researchers at CSIRO are lower than equivalent roles working in the higher education sector or industry, and can be less attractive to international talent.
3.24FTE positions have steadily declined at CSIRO since 2009, going from 4,510 FTE positions in the 2009-10 financial year to 3,693 FTE positions in 2021-22. The financial years of 2021-22 and 2023-24 reversed this trend due to the abovementioned ‘JobMaker’ budget measure. As of December 2025, CSIRO has 4,232 FTE researcher positions, which will be reduced by 300 to 350 FTE positions as was announced in November 2025.
3.25In its submission to the inquiry, Science and Technology Australia reinforced the high costs of research labour, describing it as ‘the biggest component of the cost of research.’ The cost of labour was not just the researchers themselves, but also technical staff who operate research infrastructure and other research support roles. It noted that pay increases, though ‘sorely deserved and necessary to retain highly skilled talent’, were a significant cost for both organisation and grant budgets, including CSIRO’s.
Research costs
3.26The committee also received evidence about the increase in operating costs for performing research. These costs include things such as laboratory and material supplies, including raw materials, the costs of which had increased significantly due to market demand, as well as an increasing need for data and digital capability when conducting research.
3.27CSIRO’s submission noted that in the last five years, there had been a 35 per cent increase in its information technology costs, driven by market factors like licencing fees for software, increasing data storage and management requirements and cyber security costs.
3.28Science and Technology Australia’s submission noted that increases in research costs, including the cost of power and utilities, equipment, maintenance and consumables, were being felt by all research institutions and agencies. It outlined examples of large increases in research costs just for essential supplies and consumables necessary for scientific research, such as:
a 50 per cent increase in the cost of gases and other essential chemicals since 2021;
a 19 per cent increase in the cost of shoe covers used in clean labs and a 25 per cent increase in the costs of tri-blend gloves since 2024; and
a 43 per cent increase in the cost of additive fabrication material.
3.29Science and Technology Australia also noted that increased volatility in global supply chains can have a significant impact on the cost of research, noting that krypton fluoride had increased in price from $4,000/cylinder in 2020 to a current price of $7,000/cylinder. High purity gold, necessary for use in various experiments, has also seen a 110 per cent increase in price over the last two years.
3.30At a public hearing, Mr Ryan Winn, Chief Executive Officer of Science and Technology Australia, provided the following example of increased research costs:
We also have an example where…the Heavy Ion Accelerator Facility, another [National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy] facility, was upgrading its equipment and needed a cooling system around its equipment. It had budgeted for that, but the cost of that has increased by 100 per cent, so it's now twice as expensive as planned and they can't do it. It's fundamentally making it unsafe. To keep it safe, the costs are going up critically. Liquid nitrogen, which we use to keep samples and processes cool, has increased by 50 per cent since 2021. These are fundamental parts of safety infrastructure capabilities to do the things that we need to do for science. These things are not going up at one or two per cent like the appropriations.
3.31Professor Michael Dobbie, CEO of Phenomics Australia, underlined this point, stating ‘that science is based on technology, and technology, particularly new technology, is expensive.’ He also noted that a lot of the technology needed to undertake research in Australia needs to be purchased from overseas, which adds in exchange-rate considerations.
Upgrades of departmental assets and infrastructure
3.32The committee also heard evidence about the need for, and impacts of the costs of, upgrades to CSIRO’s assets and infrastructure. In its submission, CSIRO stated:
CSIRO, like all basic and applied research organisations, is capital-intensive and requires significant specialised scientific and research infrastructure and equipment. Throughout its century-long history, CSIRO has accumulated one of the most extensive asset portfolios within the Commonwealth, comprising 46 sites across remote, regional and metropolitan locations, as well as an international facility in Montpellier, France. CSIRO sites host a wide range of specialised research facilities and associated plant and equipment, including pilot and demonstration plants, biocontainment facilities, farms, greenhouses, aquaculture facilities, telescopes and space tracking facilities, a research vessel and high-performance computing. CSIRO also maintains extensive laboratory space that must be equipped with cutting-edge technology to ensure research remains impactful and internationally competitive.
3.33CSIRO’s submission stated that the ‘net book value’ of its assets (land, buildings and equipment) was $2.4 billion, but that much of its portfolio has low or no real value. The calculated replacement value of its portfolio is currently $5.9 billion. Currently, CSIRO sources the capital to replace and maintain its asset base from depreciation funding (received through appropriation), grants from different sources and property sales. CSIRO’s current depreciation funding is fixed at $80million and was set in the 1999-2000 financial year. This amount has not been indexed or adjusted since that time.
3.34Specifically regarding property, CSIRO has more than 840 buildings on 46 sites, with 83 per cent of those buildings beyond their technical end-of-life. These obsolete buildings create further problems, such as:
present increasing costs for repair and maintenance
do not meet the requirements for modern research
often require major investment to decommission, vacate or demolish,
make it difficult to attract the best scientists
increasingly carry unacceptable health and safety risks to staff, unless remediated.
3.35Mr Tom Munyard, CSIRO Chief Operating Officer, relayed that CSIRO had been self-funding property consolidation to create savings. CSIRO sites had reduced from 58 to 45 since 2019. CSIRO sites in Canberra have been reduced from six to soon to be one site. This was an ongoing process and CSIRO would continue to try and find savings through reviewing its cost base into the future.
3.36CSIRO stated in its submission that there has been significant progress in consolidating these sites, but this has been slowed due to limited capital for ‘refurbishing, remediating and demolishing’ the existing facilities at consolidated locations. Currently, CSIRO’s backlog of repair and maintenance costs is $280 million for the 2025-26 financial year, an increase from $175 million in 2010-11. Property operating costs have also increased by 23 per cent over the last five years.
3.37CSIRO also submitted, that its property costs are significantly higher than the costs incurred by other government agencies, due to the specialist requirements of the research facilities they house. For example, a laboratory used for mineral processing uses four times the electricity as an office building. Additional costs of a research facility could include things like specialised controls (for example, gas sensors and fumigation), stable power requirements that must be operated continuously, temperature controls, specialised waste services, safety and security requirements, and the supply of chemicals and gas.
3.38Due to budget constraints, CSIRO has also had to choose between investing in scientific equipment and other capital works. Currently, CSIRO’s expenditure on scientific equipment was $281 million. CSIRO benchmarks its scientific equipment expenditure against the United States National Science Foundation’s figures. In order to meet the benchmark figures, CSIRO would require an additional $65 million of investment.
3.39The costs of maintaining CSIRO’s property, scientific and research infrastructure and equipment has faced historical underinvestment and this has led to increasing ‘regulatory, security and health, safety and environment risks relating to both physical and digital assets, despite significant interventions.’ This underinvestment has accumulated over decades, due to a combination of factors, such as CSIRO attempting to self-fund property and infrastructure needs through the sale of assets, general funding constraints, and decisions by CSIRO to prioritise the investment of appropriations into research capacity.
3.40CSIRO’s submission to the inquiry also noted that there has also been a lack of investment in digital infrastructure due to limited funding. These older systems require increasing maintenance costs and pose a significant cyber security risk.
3.41Science and Technology Australia’s submission to the inquiry reinforced this, making note that research infrastructure often includes extremely high costs for maintenance and procurement. They made the point that research equipment often requires maintenance contracts with product suppliers which can significantly affect capital expenditure budgets.
3.42At the public hearing for the inquiry, Mr Tom Munyard, Chief Operating Officer of CSIRO, confirmed that CSIRO would need an additional $80 million to $125million a year for the next ten years just to ensure their infrastructure was safe, fit-for-purpose and would enable the long-term financial sustainability of CSIRO. This would include digital and physical infrastructure, strengthen cyber-security, and assist CSIRO to maintain operations at the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness.
3.43Dr Hilton, CSIRO Chief Executive, reinforced this point, saying the required funds were not to be used for ‘bells and whistles’ or ‘flashy buildings’, but were to be used to ensure CSIRO’s staff had a safe workplace, something which was particularly importance considering the diverse range of facilities and equipment used across CSIRO’s facilities.
3.44The concerns about equipment and infrastructure at CSIRO were reiterated in surveys conducted by the CSIRO Staff Association and included as part of its submission to the inquiry. In responses to a survey, 40 per cent of respondents identified inadequate infrastructure as a workplace challenge and 25 per cent of respondents reported that poor equipment hindered their work. Issues such as these had led to ‘project delays, increased stress and reduced research quality.’
3.45Ms Susan Tonks of the CSIRO Staff Association added that due to reductions in maintenance staff, other staff were having to wait for repairs on important pieces of equipment.
Effects of constraints
3.46The committee received a large amount of evidence about the effects of the current budgetary constraints on CSIRO, both within CSIRO itself and on the broader Australian scientific, technology and research community.
3.47Some submitters took the view that a lack of CSIRO funding could weaken Australia’s long-term sovereign science capability. Dr Declan Page stated in his submission:
Sector bodies and experts highlight that just‑in‑time or one‑off funding does not deliver secure, long‑term capability. For example, the Australian Academy of Science and ATSE both criticised the lack of forward‑looking investment necessary to protect strategic research capacity and underpin productivity. Further analysis has shown that Australia’s public R&D investment as a share of GDP remains below OECD averages, and CSIRO’s funding as a share of GDP has declined over decades, intensifying pressure on public‑good research.
3.48Ms Susan Tonks of the CSIRO Staff Association reinforced this view, saying that a loss of sovereign scientific capability could lead to increasing reliance on foreign expertise in areas like climate projection, pandemic preparedness and water security and further leading to risks to the national interest. She also noted this could lead to a weakening of Australia’s ‘world-leading environmental, mineral and biosecurity research.’
3.49The CSIRO Staff Association provided information about specific programs or areas of research which had been cut:
research into high amylose wheat and allergen-free egg white products;
the loss of Data61 researchers had led to termination of projects, including one into flood management research in northern Australia;
cuts to the Health and Biosecurity Research Unity meant that clinical research would no longer continue, leading to the closure of the clinical trial unit at Westmead Hospital and withdrawal from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute;
research areas at risk include ‘climate modelling, groundwater integrity, marine research, recycling technologies and biosecurity’; and
various collaborations with Indigenous communities, government and industry are also at risk, with numerous national initiatives and long-term partnerships threatened.
3.50CSIRO’s submission stated that the changes to CSIRO’s research direction were part of a strategic shift that was separate from, though intertwined with, its budget concerns. It explained that the challenges to CSIRO’s ongoing sustainability meant that, rather than being able to hire new staff for priority research areas, it needed to be able to realise savings. CSIRO submitted that it would ‘make shifts within its reduced capability envelope to achieve stronger alignment with areas of priority as identified in the research portfolio build process.’
Loss of staff
3.51Several submitters made specific comments on the most recent round of job losses at CSIRO and the loss of knowledge and experience that would occur as a result of this round of retrenchment.
3.52In its submission, the CSIRO Staff Association made the point that reductions to the Enterprise Services and maintenance teams have led to governance and safety risks. They also stated that cuts to the CSIRO Business and Infrastructure Services Team, a group responsible for facility safety and maintenance, could ‘jeopardise both research staff and community safety’, as many of the cuts have occurred at the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, a high-risk facility where highly dangerous pathogens are studied.
3.53The CSIRO Staff Association also remarked that there was significant strain on remaining staff, with understaffing resulting in unsafe work practices, increased operational risk, as well as increased workload and administrative burden. A recent staff culture survey had shown a significant decline in staff morale and erosion in trust and staff engagement.
3.54Mr Kevin Hennesy, a climate scientist who had previously worked with CSIRO for 30 years, described the losses of 300 to 350 staff as ‘devastating’. The large losses in the Environment Research Unit (ERU), Mr Hennesy submitted, could jeopardise research in many important areas of climate related research, including climate prediction/projection capability, contributing to future national or regional climate risk assessments or climate adaptation plans, and contributing to sustainable development.
3.55Several submitters to the inquiry noted the effects of the job losses on the ERU and particularly the flow-on effects of those losses to Tasmania, with many of the ERU staff based out of Hobart working in fields including ‘atmospheric, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere, climate prediction and climate modelling and adaptation research of national significance.’
3.56The Tasmanian Government noted that losses to local CSIRO programs, particularly the ERU, could impact an estimated 40-50 roles based in Tasmania, with significant flow-on effects such as a reduction in career pathways for researchers in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean sector. This sector, it explained, is a ‘significant multi-internation market for Tasmania’, representing roughly five per cent of the Tasmanian economy. The committee was advised that Hobart’s status as an Antarctic gateway was critical as hub for key business and conference events, hosting Antarctic vessels from other countries and with the sector representing 0.5 per cent of total Tasmanian employment.
3.57Research Australia also expressed concerns about the job losses at CSIRO, noting there was a risk of the loss of talent and skills which will be hard, if not impossible, to rebuild in the future. Research Australia also questioned whether the savings created by these cuts would create the financial stability intended and called for more transparency around the nature of the cuts and which work areas would be impacted by them.
3.58One submitter to the inquiry, Dr Trevor Booth, noted that the recent round of job losses had included many Honorary Fellows, and that in the future Honorary Fellows would be limited to ‘short term retention’ tenures which was ‘an unfortunate decision based on misleading information.’
Impacts on early and mid-career researchers
3.59Several submitters drew particular attention to the loss of early and mid-career researchers in CSIRO.
3.60Professor Samantha Capon explained that CSIRO is an important training organisation for early career scientists, saying it works to:
…[facilitates] an appreciation of the challenges associated with science policy interactions and nurturing inter-and transdisciplinary approaches as well as effective communication and engagement. Additionally, CSIRO is critical to the retention, synthesis and evaluation of technical knowledge and expertise and maintaining a record and long-term perspective of scientific activity in Australia – minimising wasted investments to ‘reinvent the wheel’.
3.61Mr Hennessy made the point that CSIRO’s Early Career Fellow program’s retention rate was at 46 per cent in 2024-25, with many staff recruited on short-term contracts which are not extended.
3.62The CSIRO Staff Association advised that recent cuts are creating the risk of ‘brain drain’ due to talented scientists and researchers moving overseas where jobs were not available locally. They drew attention as well to the loss of mid-career researchers and the associated loss of mentoring capacity and institutional memory. They described this a ‘major threat to Australia’s ability to response to future scientific challenges.’
3.63These concerns were echoed by organisations outside of CSIRO. The National Farmers Federation expressed concerns about loss of talent to the agricultural R&D sector both through people leaving the sector entirely or talent moving overseas.
3.64Research Australia was also concerned by these job cuts, suggesting that these cuts were particularly harmful to early and mid-career researchers and led to perceptions that research was an unstable career path. Research Australia’s submission stated that many early and mid-career researchers identified significant challenges to remaining in research roles, such as underpayment, poor work-life balance, inadequate career development and stress. Short-term contract employment was also very common within the sector, and much higher than the national averages. This was reflected within CSIRO, where 26 per cent of staff were classed as non-ongoing employees in the 2025-25 Annual Report. The submission went on to say:
Attracting and retaining this critical workforce segment is vital to prevent breaks in the workforce pipeline and protect the future functioning of the sector. As well as reversing staff attrition, further reform is needed to improve the long-term retention of researchers.
3.65Dr Everard Edwards, a Governing Councillor with the CSIRO Staff Association, explained that many early career scientists currently at CSIRO commenced work there through a COVID era recruitment program called ‘Impossible Without You’ who ‘came in with a lot of hope and did a lot of really good work’ hoping they would be offered a job at the end of their contracts. These early career researchers have by and large since left CSIRO.
3.66CSIRO’s submission also detailed information on the ‘Impossible Without You’ campaign, which increased recruitment in response to the impacts on the R&D sector brough about by the COVID-19 pandemic. This campaign increased recruitment and retention for the years from 2021-22 to 2023-24. The submission emphasised that this was a temporary campaign, responsive to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. All ‘Impossible Without You’ fellows will either have completed, or being completing their terms by the end of 2026.
3.67Dr Saraid Billiards, CEO of the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes, gave evidence that the loss of early to mid-career researchers is a problem not just at CSIRO but across the sector. She went on to say that she is increasingly seeing that people don’t want to enter the research industry anymore, largely due to job insecurity.
3.68Dr Nadia Levin, CEO of Research Australia, made the point that the cycle of applying for grants was making research a less attractive, stable career path for young people.
3.69Other evidence to the committee drew attention to the impact of the loss of early and mid-career research careers for women. Dr Talia Avrahamzon, Head of Policy, Projects and Advocacy at Research Australia, noted that in the health and medical research sector, women represent approximately 52 per cent of the workforce, but only 25 per cent of leadership positions. Further losses of early and mid-career researchers would further drain attempts to achieve gender parity in this sector at higher levels. Dr Avrahamzon also noted that these losses would particularly effect people working in research in the regions disproportionately.
3.70Dr Edward Doddridge, appearing in a private capacity, noted that job losses at CSIRO have a broader impact than just on their internal early and mid-career scientists. He explained that when CSIRO cuts jobs it creates more competition within the university and other research sectors.
3.71This view was reiterated by Mr Ryan Winn, CEO of Science and Technology Australia, who noted that Science and Technology Australia had found that around one third of all STEM professionals were thinking of leaving the sector, and citing that low success rates for grants have contributed to job insecurity in the sector.
3.72CSIRO’s submission to the inquiry was firm that it ‘is committed to developing future research talent and fostering collaboration with universities to support education.’ CSIRO submitted that it does this through:
partnering with universities and industry to offer undergraduate traineeships and postgraduate studentships; and
providing structured three-year term roles for recent PhD and Engineering Masters gradates, the CSIRO Early Research Career Fellows (CERC Fellows) program, which includes development plans to prepare early career researchers for their careers either within CSIRO or outside it.
3.73Relating to the next generation of researchers and scientists, the Australian Science Communicators made note of the closure of youth science programs, such as the Double Helix Club and the CSIRO Discovery Centre. They contended that these closures meant CSIRO was losing the ability to build public trust, support for CSIRO, and scientific literacy with Australian young people and that ‘this loss may not be immediately visible; by the time this generation has matured it will be too late.’
Next chapter
3.74Matters relating to loss of sovereign scientific capability, including specific research areas which have been affected by cuts to CSIRO, are discussed in the next chapter.
3.75The committee’s views on the above matters and any recommendations relating to them are discussed in chapter five of this report.