AUGUST will be a pivotal month for science policy in Australia. Two
significant reports are to be released and an important forum will set the scene
for them.
First, chief scientist Robin Batterham is due to unveil his Science
Capability Review鈥攁n assessment which began last November of where
Australia stands in science and where it should be headed. Later in the month,
the Innovation Summit Implementation Group (ISIG) will release its report. The
summit in February brought together about 500 participants from research, higher
education and industry. At the time, the Prime Minister said the science
community would be entitled to judge his government by its actions. So be it.
The report is awaited anxiously.
The curtain raiser will be a forum entitled Science and Technology in the
Boardroom, to be held at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday 2
August. The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies,
FASTS, has assembled an impressive array of heavyweight speakers. The aim is to
examine the linkages between research and industry, as well as to suggest
courses of action. Terry Cutler, former head of the Industrial Research and
Development Board and recently named as one of the 50 most influential people in
Australia, will deliver a televised lunch-time address.
Advertisement
Like many movements intending to change the shape of Australia, the forum was
organised over a meal in a Melbourne restaurant. Most of the speakers were
there: Don Mercer, who chairs the Australian Information Economy Advisory
Council; Ian Dunlop, chief executive of the Institute of Company Directors; and
Terry Cutler himself. Also present was David Miles, who chairs the ISIG, as well
as former FASTS president Peter Cullen.
One of the participants told me that while the restaurant meeting did not
produce all the answers, it did come up with a route map to the future. I was
assured that this map will be unfolded at the National Press Club on 2 August.
Science and industry minister Nick Minchin is to open the forum. No doubt he
will assure the participants that their concerns are important, but will make no
specific commitments before receiving the two promised reports. I would be very
surprised if he stayed to hear the invited speakers and the subsequent
discussion. But I hope he leaves behind an adviser with advanced map-reading
skills.
AUSTRALIAN authorities have clamped down on the use of a crop pesticide in
order to protect beef exports. The National Registration Authority (NRA) for
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals has moved to ban modern formulations of
endosulfan, which is used widely in the cotton industry.
The NRA said there was 鈥渃lear evidence from last season鈥檚 use of the
chemical鈥� that unpredictable drift over long distances could lead to residues
being found in meat from beef cattle. The beef export trade could be seriously
jeopardised if endosulfan residues are detected. Last year, for instance, South
Korea threatened to ban Australian beef for this very reason.
So the use of endosulfan has been restricted. Current stocks will be phased
out during the next growing season, and what is applied will be subject to new
limitations. The downwind buffer zone, for instance, has been doubled from 1.5
to 3 kilometres.
NEXT week鈥檚 meeting of state and federal health ministers in New Zealand will
see yet another instalment in the long-running saga of deciding how to label
genetically modified foods.
Three times, the Australian and New Zealand health ministers have resolved
that any food containing genetically modified components should be labelled.
Several surveys have shown that this is what consumers want. But the processed
food industry keeps engineering ways of having the issue reconsidered.
Now the Australian Prime Minister John Howard has weighed in on the side of
the industry, urging the health ministers to dilute the labelling laws by
excluding most processed foods, all refined products such as oils and sugars,
and food additives such as colouring or flavouring agents. Consumer groups claim
the exemptions would mean that labelling would be required on only two of the 19
genetically modified foods being assessed by the Australia New Zealand Food
Authority.
Visiting US expert Carl Feldbaum told the Australian Biotechnology
Association conference in Brisbane earlier this month that consumers should get
the information they want. I agree. Feldbaum, who is a strong advocate of GM
technology, believes the food industry has no reason to fear honest labelling.
The local industry鈥檚 stance, however, is giving consumers a different
impression, and is fanning hostility to GM food products.