Selected CSIRO media mentions for the week commencing 1 September. If you encounter a paywall, request a text version by emailing the article title here.
New report reveals glaring gaps between Australia’s future needs and science capabilities – Today, the Australian Academy of Science released a landmark report that systematically measures our science capability against future needs for the first time. The findings are blunt. We have gaps – in workforce, infrastructure and coordination – that will cripple our ability to secure a bright future for the next generation, unless we act now… The Conversation, 4 September 2025 (link, text below).
Kingston’s Women in Science – The City of Kingston and former City of Moorabbin have been home to two locations of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). In Highett, the CSIRO occupied several hectares of the former RAAF site in Graham Road. Further south in Aspendale, land on the old racecourse was developed for CSIRO’s meteorological laboratories… Kingston Library, 3 September 2025 (link, text below).
The tribe has spoken: CSIRO workshops likened to Survivor councils deciding which jobs will be ‘exited’ – The nation’s leading science and research agency is this week undertaking a four-day workshop aimed at deciding the future direction of its portfolios and staffing levels. CSIRO has confirmed that research will be “exited” as part of the organisation’s “reshaping…” Region Canberra, 2 September 2025 (link, text below).
Federal agencies face backlash over role in hidden Darwin gas leak ‘scandal’ – Federal government agencies are facing a backlash over their dealings with gas giant Santos, which allowed a major methane leak to be kept secret from the public for years. The ABC this week revealed a design flaw in a storage tank at the Darwin Liquefied Natural Gas (DLNG) plant led to it leaking thousands of tonnes of climate-polluting methane since its inception in 2006… ABC News, 3 September 2025 (link, text below).,
World’s largest facility to remove ocean CO2 to open in Singapore – The largest facility in the world that can help to remove planet-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) from the ocean, located in Singapore in Tuas, is expected to begin operations in the first quarter of 2026. It uses technology to change the chemistry of seawater and remove dissolved CO2 so that the water can absorb more CO2 when released back into the ocean. The seawater is discharged back into the ocean only after it is processed to preserve the ocean’s chemistry… The Straits Times, 1 September 2025 (link, text below).
—
Dr Chennupati Jagadish for The Conversation, 4 September 2025
Since 1945, three-quarters of all global economic growth has been driven by technological advances. Since 1990, 90% of that advance has been rooted in fundamental science, according to Michael M. Crow, president of Arizona State University.
Corporate leaders in the United States understood this decades ago when they urged Congress to back “patient capital” for research – because this type of investment creates openings for breakthrough applications.
Think of the building blocks of our modern economy – wifi, smartphones, advanced cancer therapies, drought-tolerant crops and satellite navigation. These began as basic research, often with no obvious immediate application. Then they became the platforms for whole new industries.
But in Australia, we still treat research funding as a discretionary extra, subject to the ebb and flow of political expediency and annual budgets. Despite decades of speeches, reviews and strategic papers, our investment in knowledge creation and its application has nose-dived.
Today, the Australian Academy of Science released a landmark report that systematically measures our science capability against future needs for the first time.
The findings are blunt. We have gaps – in workforce, infrastructure and coordination – that will cripple our ability to secure a bright future for the next generation, unless we act now.
What did the report find?
The new report maps Australia’s scientific capability and shortfalls across three major areas.
Over the next decade, Australia is facing a demographic change with an ageing population, a decreasing fertility rate, and increasing growth in urban and regional cities.
The second national challenge is technological transformation. In most areas of life, we’re experiencing rapid technological changes. This includes advances in artificial intelligence (AI) that are already changing the shape of the workforce.
The third challenge is climate change, decarbonisation and environment. It’s imperative for Australia to transition to a net-zero economy and become resilient against the impacts of climate change.
What do we need to have in place for Australia to meet these challenges by 2035? Two key factors are science literacy and education, and national resilience. In a world of fractured geopolitics and technological competition, the countries that will thrive are those that can generate and apply knowledge for their own needs, in their own context.
The report has found eight key science areas that will be most in demand by 2035: agricultural science, AI, biotechnology, climate science, data science, epidemiology, geoscience and materials science.
For each of these, the report contains a full dashboard that shows gaps in capabilities – from education to workforce needs, research and development spending, publications and more.
Still not innovative enough
Since 2008, Australia’s spending on research and development as a proportion of gross domestic product has fallen so far behind the OECD average, it would take an extra A$28 billion a year just to reach parity.
In his election speech in 1990, then Prime Minister Bob Hawke issued a warning: being the lucky country was not enough, we had to become a clever country, too.
Today, 35 years on, Hawke’s vision of the clever country remains just that – a vision. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull tried to rekindle the impetus in 2015 with “the innovation nation”. However, this year Treasurer Jim Chalmers conceded our economy is still “not dynamic or innovative enough”.
The vast majority of global climate and earth system models have been developed in the northern hemisphere, and we need more work to understand Australian conditions as well as the Southern Ocean.
Our AI capacity is hostage to developments offshore. We import more than we invent in biotechnology, advanced manufacturing and clean energy.
These are not merely academic concerns – they are constraints on our sovereignty, resilience and competitiveness.
We need a ‘reservoir of talent’
But scientific capability is not something you can simply conjure up on a whim. You need a “reservoir of talent”, infrastructure and knowledge that takes decades to build.
Developing a climate scientist, a quantum physicist, or a vaccine researcher takes long-term investment in education, facilities and research programs. Abandoning or under-funding these pipelines for even a few years creates gaps. Knowledge can’t just flow when the tap is turned on if the reservoir is dry.
Today’s report shows the current pipeline and study choices of students don’t match the needs of Australia’s future workforce.
For example, in 2023 only 25.2% of students with a Year 12 qualification studied mathematics to at least intermediate level. Yet it’s a fundamental science discipline for AI.
Similarly, our economy relies heavily on resources and critical minerals, yet Australia isn’t training enough geoscientists.
It’s time for a whole-of-government science strategy, embedded in economic, education, defence and industry policy. The government should use the evidence in this report to address capability gaps and direct resources strategically to better position Australia for the next ten years and beyond.
Thirty-five years after Hawke’s challenge, it’s never been clearer: if we don’t act now, our luck will run out.
—
Kingston Library, 3 September 2025
The City of Kingston and former City of Moorabbin have been home to two locations of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
In Highett, the CSIRO occupied several hectares of the former RAAF site in Graham Road.
Further south in Aspendale, land on the old racecourse was developed for CSIRO’s meteorological laboratories.
In the early years of the national science agency, working life for women was very different. Women’s research papers were not published in their own name but instead, with the head of their section (always a man) accredited as the author. Despite their abilities, women faced obstacles in the early years.
When women married in the 1940s and 1950s, they were required to resign from their permanent position.
“When I married, menial tasks were assigned to me such as data recording – it was expected that I would give up my science career and start a family” – Valerie Goullet, Physicist
At Aspendale, it wasn’t until 1961 that the Division of Atmospheric Research appointed a female science graduate for the first time.
In Women’s Health Week, we shine a light on some of the outstanding women scientists whose work in their time at CSIRO’s Highett Dairy Research Laboratories has made significant contributions to community health in Australia and internationally:
Mary Ann Augustin BSc (HONS), PhD
In a long CSIRO career, Dr Augustin was appointed as Chief Research Scientist for Agriculture and Food. Mary Ann is internationally recognised for the technological, commercial and public health impact of her research in oil microencapsulation technology.
Rachel Kenward BSc (Food Science and Technology)
Rachel primarily worked on enhancing milk proteins, including for infant formula and for certain health conditions. As a site Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, Rachel was involved in the groundbreaking successful campaign to introduce funded childcare facilities on CSIRO sites.
Sandra Jefford BASc Hawksbury Agricultural College
Sandra’s family arrived from England with a British Friesian cattle herd. She commenced at the Highett laboratories as industry liaison officer and was involved with innovative milk solid research bringing health benefits worldwide. Sandra now manages a regenerative farm in Gippsland, focussed on organic, nutritious and chemical-free production.
Allison Williams (AssocDipFoodTech)
Allison’s long career at CSIRO includes work across many aspects of dairy/food science including whey proteins, probiotics and cheese. Her work involves the physical characterisation of dairy and plant proteins and effects on digestion models contributing to research for a healthier society.
We have plenty of CSIRO publications available in our libraries, many based on the work of food scientists when at Highett.
—
Region Canberra, 2 September 2025
The nation’s leading science and research agency is this week undertaking a four-day workshop aimed at deciding the future direction of its portfolios and staffing levels.
It has confirmed that research will be “exited” as part of the organisation’s “reshaping”.
However, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has rejected suggestions from the workforce that the meetings are trying to pit sections of the agency against each other in a fight for survival.
The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) has criticised the workshop process currently underway at the CSIRO as a blunt way of getting research portfolios to compete against each other in the face of another round of staffing cuts.
Susan Tonks, the union’s secretary for CSIRO matters, likened the workshops to popular reality television series Survivor, in which contestants try to outsmart and outlast each other in order to stay in the game.
“Over the last year and a half, we’ve seen science support roles cut to the bone,” she said.
“Now, the axe is swinging at the core of CSIRO – scientists, researchers and their projects.
“Now CSIRO’s research leaders have been dragged into a Survivor-style contest and made to pitch for the survival of projects in their research units.
“But this is not reality TV. This is the future of Australian science and innovation.
“When different parts of our publicly funded science institution are forced to battle each other for resources, it’s Australia that loses.
“The government must step in, stop pitting scientists against each other and properly fund the CSIRO so that our world-leading researchers can focus on science, not on fighting for survival.”
CSIRO lost 440 jobs in the last financial year, but more are slated to go as the agency talks about “reshaping” the organisation.
According to staff involved in the workshops, research portfolio leaders are having to present their cases and argue why their science deserves to continue over others.
The CPSU says the tactic is little more than a ‘Survivor Tribal Council’ to decide which research and jobs will be extinguished.
The union says the process poses a “direct threat” to Australia’s future capacity to innovate, respond to national challenges and maintain its global leadership in science and research.
A CSIRO spokesperson stated that the workshops had nothing to do with research areas competing for survival, but confirmed that the agency was undergoing a period of change.
Some research will be cut – or as CSIRO put it, “exited” – in that process.
“CSIRO is reshaping its research portfolio to ensure we are focused on delivering the science Australia needs now and into the future,” the spokesperson said.
“To achieve this, we must retain the distinct advantages we have as Australia’s national science agency, but we also need to become simpler and sustainable.
“The cost of running a modern science agency has rapidly increased over several years and our funding hasn’t kept pace.
“We must adapt to this challenge, ensuring we use the funding entrusted to us by the community in the best way for the community.
“We will need to evolve, becoming sharper in our focus, doing fewer things – including exiting some research – better and at scale.
“The workshop we are holding this week is an important step to inform these decisions.
“We’re bringing together research leaders and external advisors to collectively consider our research portfolio to make sure we are set up to tackle the challenges Australia faces.
“ We’ll also draw on a range of other relevant inputs to inform the shape of our research portfolio.
“The workshop is not about research areas competing against each other.
“Any proposed changes will be done in line with well-established processes, policies and our enterprise agreement, including our commitment to consult with staff prior to decisions being made.”
—
ABC News, 3 September 2025
Federal government agencies are facing a backlash over their dealings with gas giant Santos, which allowed a major methane leak to be kept secret from the public for years.
The ABC this week revealed a design flaw in a storage tank at the Darwin Liquefied Natural Gas (DLNG) plant led to it leaking thousands of tonnes of climate-polluting methane since its inception in 2006.
Despite this, Santos has been cleared to use the faulty tank until 2050 for its new Barossa gas project without fixing the leak or measuring emissions, in what environmentalists have branded a “national scandal”.
This followed advice to Santos over the leak from the federal Clean Energy Regulator and CSIRO, which neither agency has been willing to detail publicly.
The Clean Energy Regulator has told the ABC it has no record of any advice to Santos, despite the company reporting the leak to it by email in 2020.
The CSIRO, which Santos engaged as “independent and respected experts” for what to do about the leak, has refused to release records of its advice on the grounds this could harm its “commercial activities”.
The ABC’s revelations of the leak sparked criticism of the role of federal regulators from crossbench senators in Canberra, including David Pocock and Monique Ryan.
Federal Greens leader Larissa Waters said the party would call for an auditor-general review of “what is either a spectacular failure of regulators or a deliberate cover up by successive governments to protect a gas corporation’s profit margin”.
Senator Waters has also written to federal ministers questioning apparent inaction by the Clean Energy Regulator, as well as CSIRO’s “financial relationship with Santos”.
‘No such documents exist’
An email obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI) shows that the day after Santos took control of the DLNG in May 2020, it asked the Clean Energy Regulator about how to report a spike in estimated emissions from the leak.
Santos told the regulator that its drone surveys on the DLNG tank “identified methane emissions of 832 tonnes per annum”, which was more than what it had reported using guidelines under the National Greenhouse and Energy (NGER) scheme .
“We are seeking your confirmation that the drone monitoring results are not able to be used within NGER reporting?” it said.
However, when the ABC applied under FOI for any responses, the Clean Energy Regulator said “no such documents exist”.
The Clean Energy Regulator said it had “undertaken extensive searches of all relevant electronic and hard copy databases and filing systems for the documents you have requested, however has been unable to locate any existing documents that contain the information you are seeking”.
“Based on these searches, I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate any documents relevant to your request, but no such documents exist.”
In response to questions from the ABC about the advice, the regulator said it “does not generally comment on advice provided to individual regulated entities about their specific circumstances”.
The estimated leak was the equivalent of more carbon emissions a year than nearly one in four companies that reported to the Clean Energy Regulator in 2023-24.
CSIRO secrecy over ‘commercial activities’
Documents obtained under FOI show Santos also paid the CSIRO for advice on what to do about the leak.
The company engaged CSIRO as “independent and respected experts to provide a recommendation on the best course of action to take from here with regards to remediation and prevention”, an officer from the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority said in a November 2020 email.
This was a “really good outcome as it is very similar to the recommendation we discussed and proposed”, the officer said.
However, the CSIRO refused to release details of its research to the ABC under FOI because to do so could harm its “commercial activities”.
“The research commissioned was carried out by CSIRO on a commercial basis, on a full cost-recovery basis, in direct competition with the private sector,” it said.
“CSIRO’s undertaking of this commercial activity, and with it the experience, knowledge and trust gained, is also reasonably anticipated to generate similar commercial opportunities for CSIRO in the foreseeable future by virtue of increasing CSIRO’s attractiveness to industry stakeholders in this field.
“The release of the research and analysis described in the relevant document would damage CSIRO’s ability to secure those future commercial opportunities, while also damaging its existing relationships with industry, causing a clear detriment to CSIRO where it is working in direct competition with the private sector.”
Call for disclosure
In a letter to the federal minister responsible for CSIRO, Tim Ayres, Senator Waters said there was “no evidence that [the agency has] taken any action to limit the leaking of methane or advise relevant departments or agencies with these regulatory responsibilities”.
She called for the disclosure of CSIRO’s advice and all financial agreements with Santos.
“In light of CSIRO’s role as the appointed monitor of the methane leak, on this occasion it gives rise to a perception that the reason for their passivity and secrecy can be attributed to the financial relationship between the CSIRO and Santos,” she said.
In a statement sent to the ABC on Wednesday, CSIRO said its work with Santos over the DLNG plant “did not involve monitoring, prevention or remediation advice related to the leak”.
CSIRO said in 2021 it conducted a “desktop review of third parties’ methane emission measurement methods for the DLNG storage tank [and] also reviewed third parties’ proposals to deploy a fixed monitoring system for the tank”.
Last year, it assessed “background methane concentration around the facility and the surrounding region”, with findings “comparable to those measured in other areas in the NT and other parts of Australia”.
“CSIRO routinely provides independent scientific and technical advice — including commercial-in-confidence work — to industry and government to support decision-making but holds no regulatory role,” it said.
Senator Waters also wrote to Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen asking “what the [Clean Energy Regulator has] done to inform you on this persistent methane leak [and] how it has been allowed to continue”.
She asked, “If these emissions have been included in our national greenhouse accounts, and what can be done by the federal government to require Santos to repair or replace the leaking tank before any shipments from Barossa arrive?”
The NT EPA has said the leak at DLNG poses no immediate threat to the community or the environment, and repairing it is a “commercial decision for Santos”.
It says the methane emissions are a concern because they will contribute to global warming, but this was a matter for the Clean Energy Regulator.
Santos has said the tank is safe and fit for use until 2050, that DLNG has all relevant regulatory approvals, and it reports emissions in line with national guidelines.
—
The Straits Times, 1 September 2025
SINGAPORE — The largest facility in the world that can help to remove planet-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) from the ocean, located in Singapore in Tuas, is expected to begin operations in the first quarter of 2026.
It uses technology to change the chemistry of seawater and remove dissolved CO2 so that the water can absorb more CO2 when released back into the ocean, The Straits Times had earlier reported.
The seawater is discharged back into the ocean only after it is processed to preserve the ocean’s chemistry.
Efforts that manipulate natural processes to tackle climate change are known as geoengineering.
Tuas’ Equatic-1 demonstration plant is a collaboration between Singapore’s national water agency PUB and American start-up Equatic, which developed the technology.
What is marine carbon dioxide removal?
Marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) is a broad category that involves using the marine environment to take up and remove atmospheric CO2, said Dr Andrew Lenton, director of Australia’s national science agency Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization’s (CSIRO) carbon dioxide removal program CarbonLock.
CO2 is the main pollutant driving climate change.
The ocean, which covers 70 per cent of the earth, is one of the world’s largest natural stores of carbon. It can store carbon more effectively and over longer periods than other natural ecosystems, such as forests.
Estimates show that the ocean absorbs around 30 per cent of CO2 emissions from human activity.
mCDR efforts such as the Equatic-1 demonstration plant seek to enhance or accelerate the ocean’s ability to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere.
Why are countries looking to tap mCDR technology?
Climate change – driven by ever-increasing amounts of planet-warming gases being released into the atmosphere from human activities – is fuelling a rise in temperatures and more extreme weather events.
Investments are already being made into technology that can prevent the release of more planet-warming emissions, such as replacing fossil fuel plants with renewable energy.
But scientists have also said that novel solutions are also needed to draw down the CO2 already in the atmosphere.
Dr Asbjorn Torvanger, senior researcher at Norwegian climate research institute Cicero Centre for International Climate Research, told ST that past pollution has left a “carbon debt”.
Given this, ambitious climate policy targets would require large volumes of CO2 to be removed, he added.
“Given the large volume of the ocean and the sizable absorption share of human CO2 emissions by the ocean, the ocean’s CO2 removal potential might be large,” he said.
What are the different approaches to mCDR?
CSIRO’s Dr Lenton said there are mainly two approaches to mCDR – chemical and biological.
The Equatic-1 facility will use the chemical method, he added.
An electrical current is passed through the seawater pumped into the plant from adjacent desalination plants.
This leads to a series of chemical reactions that split the seawater into hydrogen and oxygen. The dissolved CO2 is combined with minerals in seawater like calcium and magnesium to produce solid limestone – essentially trapping the CO2 for at least 10,000 years.
The process mimics the natural formation of seashells. The solid calcium and magnesium-based materials can either be stored on the ocean floor, or potentially be used as construction materials.
Biological methods include farming seaweed or restoring coastal ecosystems like mangroves.
Seaweed absorbs CO2 through photosynthesis. The seaweed may then be harvested or sunk to deep waters to store the carbon for a long time.
Blue carbon ecosystems such as mangroves, wetlands and seagrass, are natural carbon sinks. Restoring these ecosystems would enable them to take in large amounts of carbon.
Chemical approaches are currently the most technologically advanced and scalable techniques based on field trials to date, according to a blue paper commissioned by the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Ocean Panel) launched in June.
The Ocean Panel is an initiative of world leaders working together towards a sustainable ocean economy.
How does mCDR affect the marine environment?
The answer to this is not immediately clear, but scientists have warned that the environmental impact of mCDR technology warrants further study.
Dr Xu Haoxin, chief consultant of carbon capture at consultancy firm Ramboll, said that the long-term ecological effects of the removal processes on the marine ecosystems are not yet fully understood.
While the concept holds promise, this is a fairly new research field and much more work needs to be done, she added.
The Ocean Panel blue paper also noted that given the interconnectivity and interdependency of different oceanic environments, any intervention is likely to have environmental impacts.
For example, pH disruption to processes like photosynthesis can affect ecosystem services such as biological carbon sequestration (carbon dioxide removal by natural ecosystems), food production and water quality. pH is a measure of acidity and alkalinity.
Marine biogeochemist Patrick Martin from Nanyang Technological University’s Asian School of the Environment previously told ST that Equatic’s technology, if deployed at a large-enough scale, could represent a “major manipulation” of the ocean’s chemistry.
“When you start doing manipulations in the ocean, you change the ocean’s chemistry. Some species might be fine with that, other species might be harmed by it,” Associate Professor Martin said.
Some methods may change the concentrations and ratios of important dissolved elements such as calcium and magnesium, which are essential for marine species like corals to form shells and skeletons, he said. Other methods may increase the concentrations of harmful trace metals in seawater, which might be toxic for many marine species, he added.
Equatic told ST that its technology was “designed with the health of the ocean in mind”.
“Potential impacts on the marine environment are important considerations and our process directly addresses them through built-in safeguards,” it said.
“Years of ongoing research underpin our approach and we continue to run extensive laboratory-based, and full-scale simulation studies to evaluate environmental effects,” said Equatic.
The company added that ongoing studies have indicated no harm to the marine environment when processes are kept within the ocean’s natural limits.
What are the other challenges of mCDR?
Experts said that more research is needed to understand the permanence and scalability of the techniques, as well as their impacts on ecosystems.
While the natural processes upon which mCDR approaches are based are well understood, the potential to scale mCDR to climatically relevant scales is “highly uncertain”, according to the blue paper.
One challenge is the monitoring, reporting and verifying of the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere and associated environmental impacts, said Dr Lenton. This may become more difficult when systems scale up, he added.
Dr Xu said that some mCDR methods, such as those that use electrochemical processes, may also require a lot of energy with the current technologies.
Another challenge may be the public’s attitudes towards these techniques – marine geoengineering may face skepticism due to perceived risks or lack of transparency, she said.
“Further development, rigorous testing, and public engagement are essential before it can be compared meaningfully with mainstream carbon removal solutions or considered for large-scale investment,” she said.
HSBC’s global head of carbon removal technologies Kash Burchett said that it is important for governments to support the development of carbon removal technologies.
This is because such innovations are essential in abating residual emissions that cannot be tackled via conventional methods like clean electrification.
“Not all approaches are equal and each needs to be assessed on its own merits,” said Dr Lenton. “Carbon dioxide removal is not a silver bullet. (But) it is clear that without carbon dioxide removal, there is no pathway to getting to net zero emissions.”
“The increasing urgency of the climate crisis makes it very important to conduct research on such technologies,” said Prof Martin.