Selected CSIRO media mentions for the week commencing 13 October. If you encounter a paywall, request a text version by emailing the article title here.
We need to talk about who startup programs are really built for – Most startup accelerators in Australia are built for people who don’t exist. The archetypal founder envisioned by these programs, a 25-year-old tech graduate with no caring responsibilities, unlimited flexibility and venture capital connections, represents a tiny fraction of Australia’s actual entrepreneurial landscape… Dynamic Business, 17 October 2025 (link, text below).
Eerie Faceless Creature Discovered in the Deep Sea Stuns Scientists – The ocean’s depths have always fascinated explorers, not just for their remote beauty but for the strange, often otherworldly creatures that inhabit them. Recently, a rare and eerie species of deep-sea fish, the faceless cusk eel, was captured on camera, stirring the curiosity of marine researchers around the world. These bizarre creatures, known for their ghostly appearance and lack of facial features, may be the newest stars in the deep-sea exploration spotlight… IDR, 14 October 2025 (link, text below).
CSIRO research threatened by historically low government funding – Australia’s national science agency has hit historically low levels of government funding. That’s according to new analysis from the parliamentary library — commissioned by independent Senator David Pocock. The CSIRO admits funding isn’t keeping up with the cost of vital scientific research, as departments are asked to consolidate research activity and reduce headcount… ABC RN Breakfast 15 October 2025 (audio only)
Australia’s Fundamental Research Funding Crisis Is Being Ignored – The Strategic Examination of Research and Development (SERD) issues papers have failed to address declining investment in fundamental research (sometimes referred to as basic or discovery research), instead implying research is only important if it can be commercialised by industry… Mirage News, 16 October 2025 (link, text below).
CSIRO gambles its integrity pushing ideology as science – There was a time when the CSIRO gave us useful things, like myxomatosis, Aeroguard and fungal-resistant cotton. Today, government scientists are investigating ways of messing with our minds. They are dabbling in the dark art of behavioural science to “drive impactful behavioural change” in the race to achieve net zero… The Australian, 20 October 2025 (link, text below).
—
Dynamic Business, 17 October 2025
New research from CSIRO and ANU shows how business incubators can redesign programs for measurable performance gains through diversity, equity and inclusion practices.
What’s happening: CSIRO’s ON Innovation Program partnered with ANU’s Global Institute for Women’s Leadership and the Wiyi Yani U Thangani Institute for First Nations Gender Justice to investigate how diversity, equity and inclusion can be embedded into innovation ecosystems.
Why this matters: Research shows inclusive innovation teams are 10x more innovative, 8x more likely to collaborate effectively, and 6x more likely to report positive mental health. Yet most Australian accelerators still design programs around rigid structures that exclude parents, neurodivergent entrepreneurs, regional founders and anyone who doesn’t fit the Silicon Valley stereotype.
Most startup accelerators in Australia are built for people who don’t exist. The archetypal founder envisioned by these programs, a 25-year-old tech graduate with no caring responsibilities, unlimited flexibility and venture capital connections, represents a tiny fraction of Australia’s actual entrepreneurial landscape.
The reality looks dramatically different. According to Startup Muster data, the average Australian founder is in their late thirties with financial dependents, working to solve problems they’ve encountered in business. More than a third were born overseas. All-male founding teams secured 85% of the capital raised in the first half of 2024, whilst startups with at least one woman founder received 10%, and all-female teams captured only 5%.
Now, CSIRO has released research showing exactly how much innovative potential Australia’s innovation ecosystem is leaving on the table, and provides a detailed roadmap for capturing it.
The Stanford dropout problem
CSIRO’s ON Innovation Program, in partnership with the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership and the Wiyi Yani U Thangani Institute for First Nations Gender Justice at ANU, spent months investigating how diversity, equity and inclusion practices impact innovation outcomes. The findings confirm what many entrepreneurs already know: programs designed around stereotypical founders systematically exclude the majority of Australia’s entrepreneurial talent.
The research examined accessibility, communication, cohort diversity, policy frameworks and program responsiveness across Australia’s innovation ecosystem. Using surveys, interviews and policy analysis, the teams identified systemic barriers that limit participation and impact.
What emerged was a clear pattern. Rigid program structures exclude participants with caring responsibilities and neurodivergent needs. First Nations innovators require tailored, respectful engagement aligned with cultural protocols that most programs don’t provide. Women report dissatisfaction with leave and care policies, highlighting systemic inequities. Feedback mechanisms remain inadequate, with few clear, safe and transparent complaint channels.
What the research found
The performance implications are significant. According to CSIRO’s findings, inclusive teams are 10x more innovative, 8x more likely to collaborate effectively, and 6x more likely to report positive mental health compared to homogeneous teams.
The research also revealed that representation matters at every level. Diverse facilitators and mentors foster trust and psychological safety, creating environments where participants can contribute meaningfully. Cultural safety emerges as critical, particularly for First Nations innovators who require engagement that respects cultural protocols rather than imposing mainstream business frameworks.
Programs that actively support diversity, equity and inclusion see stronger engagement and retention. Inclusive design leads to more innovative, socially relevant outcomes. Participants value cultural safety, flexibility and visible leadership commitment as core enablers of success.
The project produced multiple resources tailored for different ecosystem participants: a comprehensive playbook, plus specific roadmaps for innovators and researchers, for programs including incubators and accelerators, and for funders including venture capitalists, angels, philanthropists and government agencies.
Why SMEs should care
For small and medium enterprises, particularly those founded by women, parents, regional entrepreneurs or people from underrepresented backgrounds, these findings validate experiences many have encountered when seeking accelerator support or investment.
Female founders face investor bias that frames questions differently, with women asked risk-prevention queries whilst men receive growth-oriented questions, steering discussions towards risk rather than opportunity.
Research from multiple sources confirms the pattern. On a global basis, female-founded startups secure just 3% of all venture capital funding, whilst in Australia that figure increases to 10%. Female founders are outnumbered three to one in Australia’s startup ecosystem because they often lack the support of a strong network of door openers.
The CSIRO playbook provides a framework for changing these dynamics through inclusive program design. For SME founders, understanding these principles means identifying which accelerators and incubators have genuinely redesigned their approach versus those maintaining structures that will create obstacles rather than opportunities.
The research outlines specific implementation strategies including inclusive recruitment and leadership development, flexible program design that accommodates diverse needs, capability building for staff and mentors, structural redesign to remove systemic barriers, and improved data systems to support accountability.
The performance advantage
CSIRO’s work extends beyond identifying problems to providing actionable solutions. The playbook examines leverage points and best practices for embedding diversity, equity and inclusion across innovation systems, developing strategic frameworks to guide inclusive design, delivery and evaluation of programs.
The business case is unambiguous. Research shows that inclusive innovation leads to stronger problem solving through diverse perspectives, greater relevance of solutions to real-world challenges, improved collaboration across sectors and communities, and enhanced commercial outcomes through broader market reach.
For Australian SMEs navigating the innovation ecosystem, these findings matter for practical reasons. Founders can use the roadmap to evaluate whether programs genuinely support diverse participants or simply pay lip service to inclusion whilst maintaining exclusionary structures.
The research makes clear that inclusive innovation isn’t a one-off initiative but a long-term commitment to transforming how Australia’s innovation ecosystem operates. Programs must move beyond isolated interventions to systemic change that makes inclusion standard practice rather than exception.
CSIRO’s ON Innovation Program has equipped more than 7,800 researchers and innovators across 62 research organisations since its launch in 2015. Alumni have raised over $415 million in investment capital and secured more than $336 million in commercialisation grants, supporting the formation of new deep-tech companies that have created over 700 jobs.
The inclusive innovation playbook represents the program’s commitment to ensuring these opportunities remain accessible to all potential founders, regardless of whether they match outdated stereotypes about who entrepreneurs should be.
For SME founders, the message is straightforward. Programs designed around inclusive principles don’t just feel better, they perform better. The evidence now exists to prove it. The question facing Australia’s innovation ecosystem is whether it will act on that evidence or continue excluding the majority of entrepreneurial talent by designing for founders who largely don’t exist.
The playbook and roadmaps are available for download from CSIRO’s website. The organisation welcomes feedback, collaboration and participation in future evaluations.
For roadmap and playbook, visit: https://www.csiro.au/ON-inclusive-innovation
—
IDR, 14 October 2025
The ocean’s depths have always fascinated explorers, not just for their remote beauty but for the strange, often otherworldly creatures that inhabit them. Recently, a rare and eerie species of deep-sea fish, the faceless cusk eel, was captured on camera, stirring the curiosity of marine researchers around the world. These bizarre creatures, known for their ghostly appearance and lack of facial features, may be the newest stars in the deep-sea exploration spotlight.
A Face from the Abyss: The Fascinating Discovery
When the E/V Nautilus team ventured into the deep waters of the Cook Islands in the South Pacific, they had no idea they were about to make an astonishing discovery. As the remotely operated vehicle (ROV) descended to the abyssal depths, a shadowy, faceless shape loomed on the screen. This strange fish, moving eerily on the ocean floor, had no visible eyes, nose, or mouth, leaving researchers puzzled but intrigued. The creature’s appearance led the team to wonder what kind of fish they were seeing. The eerie sight, likened to a giant tadpole, was an unexpected find during the expedition.
Faceless cusk eels (Typhlonus nasus), as they are scientifically known, are notoriously difficult to study because of their habitat. These creatures live as deep as 5,100 meters (16,730 feet) below the ocean’s surface, where light does not penetrate, making sightings exceedingly rare. In fact, they were effectively rediscovered in 2017, after a long hiatus of over a century in scientific records. When spotted by researchers aboard CSIRO’s RV Investigator, the team initially thought they had encountered a completely new species. “Everyone was amazed,” one scientist explained in a blog post. “We fishos thought we’d hit the jackpot, especially as we had no idea what it was.”
Evolution’s Unusual Solution: The Absence of Eyes
The most striking feature of the faceless cusk eel is its lack of visible eyes, a fascinating evolutionary adaptation to its environment. Living in the abyssal zone, a region so deep it is completely devoid of sunlight, the eel has evolved to survive without the need for sight. The absence of eyes in the adults of this species is not a disadvantage but a necessary survival trait in one of Earth’s darkest and most hostile environments. Juveniles, however, have small eyes hidden beneath their skin, which suggests that the species’ ancestors may have once had fully functional vision.
As these creatures evolved, the need for large eyes became obsolete. Without any natural light at these depths, large eyes would have served no purpose. Instead, evolution favored the reduction of these features, much like other deep-sea creatures that have evolved to live in darkness, such as cavefish. The design of the cusk eel reflects a biological principle observed in many organisms that adapt to lightless environments: over time, eyes become less necessary and eventually disappear, making room for other adaptations suited for survival in the abyss.
Faceless But Not Without Character: The Mysterious Anatomy
Despite their appearance of having no face, the faceless cusk eel has a highly specialized and unique anatomy. The most notable feature, apart from its lack of eyes, is the positioning of its mouth. Located at the bottom of the animal, the mouth is hidden from side view, and when viewed from the side, the fish appears to have no distinguishable facial features at all.
“This little fish looks amazing because the mouth is actually situated at the bottom of the animal, so when you look side-on, you can’t see any eyes, you can’t see any nose or gills or mouth,” said Dr. Tim O’Hara, an expedition leader. “It looks like two rear-ends on a fish, really.”
This unusual anatomy makes the cusk eel particularly fascinating for scientists. Despite their lack of facial features, these eels are perfectly adapted to their environment. They swim along the seafloor in search of food, often feeding on detritus and small organisms. Their adaptation to the deep, dark habitat is remarkable, allowing them to thrive in conditions where most other life forms would struggle.
Rediscovery of an Ancient Species
The faceless cusk eel’s rediscovery in 2017 was an exciting moment for marine biologists, not just because of its unique appearance but also because it provided new insights into deep-sea biodiversity. Scientists aboard the CSIRO RV Investigator initially mistook the eel for a previously unknown species. However, after further examination, it became clear that this was the same Typhlonus nasus species that had not been recorded since 1873. “We even conjured up possible new scientific names,” an enthusiastic CSIRO scientist remarked. “So, it’s not a new species, but it’s still an incredibly exciting find, and we think ours is the largest one seen so far,” they added.
This rediscovery is an important reminder of the mysteries that still remain in the deep ocean. Scientists expect that further deep-sea exploration will yield even more bizarre and previously unknown creatures. As O’Hara pointed out, “Scientists expect to find a range of animals, including new species, of fish, starfish, molluscs, crabs, sponges, marine worms and sea spiders.” Each new discovery helps expand our understanding of the ocean’s biodiversity and the unique adaptations that allow life to flourish in the harshest of environments.
A Glimpse into the Future of Deep-Sea Exploration
The continued exploration of the deep-sea habitats of the Cook Islands, and other similarly unexplored regions, holds the promise of many more discoveries. The data gathered during the Nautilus expedition is invaluable for understanding the ecological processes that sustain these deep-sea ecosystems. As the team continues their work through October 21, there is anticipation of uncovering even more strange and wondrous creatures that thrive in the ocean’s darkest corners.
The faceless cusk eel’s rediscovery is just one example of the wonders that lie beneath the waves, waiting to be explored. As scientists and researchers push the boundaries of ocean exploration, we are sure to encounter many more creatures that challenge our understanding of biology and evolution. The deep-sea realm remains one of Earth’s final frontiers, and with each new discovery, we inch closer to unraveling its secrets.
—
Mirage News, 16 October 2025
The Strategic Examination of Research and Development (SERD) issues papers have failed to address declining investment in fundamental research (sometimes referred to as basic or discovery research), instead implying research is only important if it can be commercialised by industry.
Australian Academy of Science President Professor Chennupati Jagadish AC said the decline in fundamental research investment over the last decade cannot be ignored.
“Fundamental research is the wellspring of innovation. There is no ‘D’ without ‘R’,” Professor Jagadish said.
“When nurtured, fundamental research enables innovation, boosts productivity, grows the economy, and allows us to thrive and stay safe in a rapidly changing world.”
The SERD has rightly acknowledged the striking underinvestment in R&D by the business sector, now more than $28 billion less than the OECD average.
However, Government investment in R&D, including in fundamental research, is also declining and must be urgently addressed, particularly as the cost of doing research is rising and funding models are at breaking point.
“Public and private R&D investment serve different but complementary roles and both need attention to create a coherent and thriving ecosystem that supports Australia’s needs,” Professor Jagadish said.
Government provides higher-risk patient capital to support fundamental research that generates new knowledge, is unpredictable, can be difficult to commercialise or – in the case of public good research – should not be commercialised.
While private investment is directed to scale and commercialise viable lower-risk applied research, government funding is vital for research that benefits everyone in society, not just a single company.
It is often noted that the quality and volume of Australia’s fundamental research effort is disproportionate to our population size.
This does not mean Australia’s fundamental research effort is adequately funded, nor can it sustain long-term funding cuts.
The facts are that ARC and NHMRC funding has declined in real terms for more than a decade and a smaller proportion of it is directed to fundamental research.
Government investment in CSIRO has also declined in real terms.
Draining the wellspring of innovation has consequences for Australia’s ability to grow industries that diversify our economy.
The Academy strongly recommends a 10-year R&D investment plan enabling the public and private sectors to work together to reverse the funding decline and to create a globally competitive R&D ecosystem in Australia.
“Given the constrained fiscal environment, the Academy has proposed a temporary R&D levy that is budget-positive; incentivises R&D investment especially by low-intensity R&D companies; and creates a new revenue stream that can support fundamental research,” Professor Jagadish said.
R&D levies in the agricultural and grains sector have applied since 1989, are well tolerated, and have enabled significant innovations in these sectors.
The Academy’s independent analysis shows the economic impact of an R&D levy on low-intensity R&D businesses is tolerable and is unlikely to have unintended consequences.
The Academy’s response to the SERD issues paper also includes the following.
“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build an R&D system that can deliver economic and social benefits for all Australians,” Professor Jagadish said.
“We must get this right.”
—
The Australian, 20 October 2025
There was a time when the CSIRO gave us useful things, like myxomatosis, Aeroguard and fungal-resistant cotton. Today, government scientists are investigating ways of messing with our minds. They are dabbling in the dark art of behavioural science to “drive impactful behavioural change” in the race to achieve net zero.
The CSIRO’s experiments in embedding climate messaging into popular culture are more evidence of an agency drifting dangerously out of its lane, crossing the line from applied science to propaganda. The project is led by Danie Nilsson, a behavioural psychologist who graduated from the University of Queensland with a PhD in Conservation Psychology.
Her expertise in this somewhat obscure field of knowledge has been put to good use by the CSIRO, which assigned her the task of developing narratives for the Nine TV show, Renovate or Rebuild. The aim is to “drive impactful behavioural change” in viewers. Nilsson worked with the producers at the storyboard stage to embed sustainable messaging in scripts. She then tested its effectiveness using surveys and focus groups.
She encouraged the use of “social normative messaging” by using apparently throwaway lines, such as “everybody is doing it these days”, in a segment discussing the installation of rooftop solar and batteries. “Putting rooftop solar on our house was a no-brainer,” says one couple in a snippet from the show posted on YouTube. “Some might say it’s like having money fall from the sky.”
The words are kookily illustrated with a clip of the couple catching coins raining from heaven. “Our solar panels, coupled with the battery system, allow us to collect and store the energy we don’t use during the day,” the script continues. “It also helps us do our bit for the environment and our kids’ future.”
Nilsson’s research concludes that this works. She found viewers were more likely to prioritise the installation of solar panels or the purchase of an electric vehicle than non-viewers. The differences in attitude are relatively small but when the goal is to reach net zero, every little bit helps. The message is reinforced with celebrity endorsements. Using mass media to alter human behaviour is an art the advertising industry has been developing for years. Advertisers are reported to spend $US30bn ($46.33bn) a year on product placement, a figure that will probably surprise no one. You would have to be a remarkably naive viewer to think Tom Cruise wore Ray-Bans in Top Gun by chance.
Nudge tactics in pursuit of public policy goals are a different matter entirely. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s influential book, Nudge (2008), was initially embraced by Conservative prime minister David Cameron in Britain. Yet it chills the spine after the experience of Covid-19, when we were nudged into doing so many things we now recognise as unnecessary at the very least.
Victoria’s former chief health officer, Brett Sutton, admitted last month that lockdown was a mistake. We hope he will bring this enlightened approach to his new role as director of the CSIRO’s Health & Biosecurity Unit.
The CSIRO earned its reputation in the hard sciences in the realm of atoms, genomes and radio waves. It gave us polymer banknotes, wi-fi, drought-resistant crops and world-class astronomy. Venturing into the human sciences is a different enterprise altogether.
Engineering molecules or radio telescopes is one thing; engineering minds is another, venturing into the contested world of advocacy, ideology and moral instruction. The CSIRO’s strength lies in transforming nature for human benefit, not in reshaping humans to fit a constrained view of nature.
Channel 9’s management and board can answer for themselves about the ethics of screening agitprop television dressed up as reality TV. Renovate or Rebuild’s producer, The Blue Tribe Company, is unashamedly in the business of promoting net zero. Its company motto boasts: “We’re in the Business of Doing More Good”.
So-called “impact production” has become an established genre in the US, particularly in reality shows. Donald Trump may or may not be impressed to learn that his show, The Apprentice, employs an “eco-expert” to grill contestants on their green business attempts.
An article in Forbes magazine notes how the producers of Love is Blind encourage contestants to boast about their passion for sustainability to impress potential partners. The article claims that reality TV has “the power to normalise climate solutions by making sustainability exciting, aspirational, and a central part of the narratives”.
The American comedy drama Just Like That featured a lead character ordering a plant burger in a conscious attempt to impose climate-friendly norms.
The infiltration of popular culture with climate propaganda has the backing of UN climate change organisation the UNFCCC, which last year established a Film and Television Steering Committee “to harness the unparalleled power of entertainment to accelerate climate awareness and action on a global scale”.
The cultural muscle being applied to this utopian project should prompt some sober reflection by the Liberal Party as it reconsiders its policy on net zero.
Winning the argument on policy fundamentals is the easy part. It is economically reckless, undermines energy security and industrial competitiveness, transfers sovereignty to global technocrats, and subordinates human welfare to abstract metrics.
Overcoming the sentiment that net zero is a virtuous aim and countering the seductive narrative of sustainability, niceness and kindness is not for the faint of heart, however. To challenge the delusion of net zero is to pick a fight with an international industrial propaganda complex.
What the party must do is separate the noise and pantomime within the beltway from the practical commonsense that prevails outside.
Minds are not manipulated as easily as the behaviourists like to think. Human behaviour cannot easily be reduced to a set of conditioned responses. As with the voice referendum, the condescension oozing from the advocates is an indication of weakness rather than strength.