I sent this message to my local member:<p>----<p>I read today of the plan for the CSIRO to cut 80% of its climate scientists (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;australia-cuts-110-climate-scientist-jobs&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;australia-cuts-110...</a>)<p>Firstly, how does this fit in with the government&#x27;s vision for managing our climate, and contributing to international climate study? As the premier climate research country in the southern hemisphere this decision not only has ramifications for us but also for the global community.<p>What can we do to ensure the continuance of long running monitoring operations, that provide some of the few sources of high quality and long term data on the climate in the southern hemisphere?<p>The CSIRO has a long history performing fundamental science in tandem with commercialising its work. I am concerned at the current drive towards commercialisation at the expense of fundamental research. I support and understand the needs for commercialisation, as it is a clear driver of useful innovation, however the government is one of the few organisations that can focus on long term research that seeks answers to who we are and what place we have in this universe.
How can we ensure that the government continues to invest in long term, fundamental research?