¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ

THE MESSAGE was clear right from the opening sessions of the Safety in Action
conference in Melbourne last week—neglect of research is costing lives in
the Australian workplace.

In an average working week about 6000 people are injured on the job in
Australia, of whom about 4000 need medical attention. More seriously, about nine
are killed and 800 permanently disabled—each week. Tore Larsson of the
Monash University Accident Research Centre provided these chilling statistics to
the occupational health experts, researchers and regulators who gathered at the
conference, which was organised by the Victorian division of the Safety
Institute of Australia.

In terms of injuries, Larsson said, workplace accidents rank with the carnage
on the roads. But accidents on the job only make headlines when several people
are killed or injured, as in a mine explosion, or when they cause widespread
disruption, such as the explosion 18 months ago that left Victoria without gas
for weeks.

Given the figures, you would expect a significant research effort into ways
of lowering the risks. Not so, says Richie Gun of Adelaide University, who gave
a scathing assessment of recent cutbacks. In-house research by the National
Occupational Health and Safety Council, he told the conference, had been wound
back in favour of commissioning work from academic researchers. And then the
granting scheme to make it all happen was abolished! So researchers are now
forced to compete for funds from the National Health and Medical Research
Council. But the council is heavily oriented toward medical projects, which
means very little work on occupational health is being supported.

Some industries are clearly more dangerous than others. Construction workers
and, perhaps surprisingly, those in the meat and food industry are about seven
times more likely to be injured on the job than the average worker. But, Gun
pointed out, the record for deaths is quite different. While the total number of
fatalities at work remains a relatively constant 450 a year, there has been a
significant reduction in recent years in the number of fatal accidents in
manufacturing and construction. Agriculture has stayed about the same, while the
record of the mining industry has worsened. Forestry and fishing, however,
remain by far the most dangerous occupations, with about ten times as many
deaths per worker as the overall average.

The workplace also seems to be becoming more dangerous in other ways. Despite
the introduction of new technology to do much of the heavy lifting work in
industry, the number of back injuries resulting in lost time was significantly
higher in 1995 than in 1983. And, while the figures for men are now declining,
the number of women suffering back injuries shows no sign of improvement.

I WASN’T surprised to hear that the Encyclopaedia Britannica (on its
website, Britannica.com) recently recognised the Australian Museum for having
one of the best websites in the world for information on biodiversity. The
museum has long had a reputation for fine work in this field. The director, Mike
Archer, pointed out that all the top five biodiversity websites nominated were
Australian. That is indeed a proud record. It would be even better if we could
translate our success in providing information on biodiversity into world class
achievement in protecting that biodiversity.

THE QUEENSLAND government has drafted an ethical code of practice for
biotechnology, genetics and assisted reproduction. It is an interesting step.
That the Beattie government has shown such interest in supporting biotechnology
and genetic modification as the basis of future economic developments is not
unusual. Other states show similar enthusiasm for these emerging fields. It is
quite a departure, however, for a government to recognise that these
developments will continue to have public support only if they are consistent
with the community’s ethical values.

The draft code sets high standards. Companies are expected to ensure that
risks are acknowledged through open and accountable processes, and that
consumers will be provided with clear, honest and verifiable information about
food products that meet the highest standards of nutrition, safety and benefit.
Adherence to such a code would certainly be in stark contrast to many other
commercial activities.

The guidelines for health activities are equally strict. The draft code is
available on the Web at www.premiers.qld.gov.au/whatsnew.htm I was interested
to see that early feedback referred to the broad need for an ethical code for
the whole of science. It will be fascinating to see how industry reacts to these
dangerous new precedents.