Eminent scientist Clive Spashhas resigned from the CSIRO and called for a Senate inquiry into the science body after the censorship of his controversial report into emissions trading.
Dr Spash has lashed out at the organisation, which he says promotes self-censorship among its scientists with its unfair publication guidelines.
He has been stunned at the treatment he's received at the hands of CSIRO management, including boss Megan Clark, and he believes he's not alone.
"I've been treated extremely poorly," he said.
"There needs to be a Senate inquiry.
"The way the publication policy and the charter are being interpreted will encourage self-censorship.
"It's obviously happened before at the CSIRO - and there's issues currently."
Last month, Dr Spash accused the organisation of gagging him and his report - The Brave New World of Carbon Trading - and restricting its publication.
The report is critical of cap and trade schemes, like the one the Rudd government is seeking to introduce, as well as big compensation to polluters.
Dr Spash advocates a direct tax on carbon.
The CSIRO said the report was in breach of its publication guidelines, which restrict scientists from speaking out on public policy.
But it provoked accusations the CSIRO is censoring research harmful to the Government.
Under intense pressure, Dr Clark publicly released the report on November 26 but warned Dr Spash would be punished for his behaviour and his refusal to amend it.
"I believe that internationally peer-reviewed science should be published or, if Dr Clark wishes to have her own opinion, then she should publish her own opinion," said Dr Spash, who has been on sick leave.
"I've been to the doctor under extreme stress.
"I was surprised at senior management and how I was treated."
He had been ordered not to speak to the media while working for the CSIRO, which originally headhunted him for the job.
Dr Spash, who is heading to Europe where he plans to stay indefinitely, was reluctant to openly criticise the Government but noted that Science Minister Kim Carr had been abreast of the situation.
Journal New Political Economy had written to Senator Carr, detailing the changes the CSIRO had demanded and refusing to publish the censored version of the paper.
"They cut the conclusion by half, 11 per cent of the text, changed the thrust of the meaning from being an index criticism of an ETS to being an argument that it stands to be redesigned," Dr Spash said.
"I was clearly censored."