AUSTRALIA now has a national biotechnology strategy. It was launched in
Brisbane earlier this week by science minister Nick Minchin at the annual
conference of the Australian Biotechnology Association (ABA).
He told about 300 delegates that the Federal government was committing more
than A$30 million to support biotechnology. The measures were all in
place, he said, in the fine print of the May Budget. And just to make sure his
announcement was seen as good news, the minister also provided a glossy booklet
of Australia鈥檚 progress and achievements in the field.
The lion鈥檚 share of the money goes towards setting up the A$20 million
Biotechnology Innovation Fund (BIF), which is aimed at helping to bridge the gap
between laboratory research and commercial production. The idea is that the BIF
will provide money for studies to prove the commercial viability of innovations
before they are offered to the private sector. The Commonwealth is seeking
matching finance from the states and the private sector for the fund. There is
no doubt this area needs attention. For decades Australian research has
languished for lack of commercial application.
Advertisement
At the conference, both Minchin and Queensland deputy premier Jim Elder
talked up biotechnology as one of the most important industry sectors of the new
century. But they also acknowledged public concern about aspects of
biotechnology, especially genetic modification of food. Elder spoke of the need
for a strong ethical and regulatory framework, and said the public still sought
reassurance. Minchin agreed. 鈥淲e have an obligation to demonstrate the
opportunity for improvements to our health, in benefits to the environment and
in enhancing the competitiveness of our industries,鈥� he said, announcing funding
to continue the public awareness programme of Biotechnology Australia (the body
which coordinates Federal activity in the area).
I must admit to being concerned, however, by the approach the awareness
programme is taking. Its manager, Craig Cormick, told the ABA conference of
surveys of consumer opinion which showed that 58 per cent of people are worried
about genetically modified (GM) food. He seemed to draw comfort from the finding
that larger numbers of people are anxious about food poisoning (72 per cent),
pesticide residues (68 per cent) and tampering with food products (65 per cent),
than genetic modification. And he went on to say that the public awareness
programme aimed to provide 鈥渂alanced and factual information鈥�, as opposed to the
鈥渕isinformation and hysteria鈥� put out by those opposed to GM food. Consumer
activists tell me they see the programme simply as promoting the use of GM
products.
I was pleased that the national strategy includes funding to examine the
costs and benefits for the food and agriculture industries of supplying GM
products. This is an important question over which New Zealand also is
agonising. Some markets will accept GM products, while others will be open only
to food that can be certified as GM-free. Whether a country should aim at one or
the other of these markets is a crucial strategic question. It may even be
possible to pursue a mixed strategy given clear segregation of GM products from
those that contain no genetic modification.
Weighing up the costs and benefits of the three alternatives is partly a
matter of gathering factual evidence. But it also depends on value judgements
about the likely relative growth in the different markets, and how easy it will
be to segregate different product streams. So I was a bit worried to hear that
discussion on the topic will be confined within the rarefied air of a single
government department in Canberra鈥擜griculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The
debate should draw on much wider viewpoints.
AN INVITED representative of US biotechnology, Carl Feldbaum, told the
conference of the mis-reporting of an industry statement opposing human cloning.
One newspaper told its readers the biotechnology industry believed 鈥渉uman
clothing should be prohibited鈥�. Feldbaum said that in response he received
several supportive messages from nudist organisations. I鈥檝e heard of frank
disclosure, but never on such a scale.
The Internet is giving people on both sides of the Tasman a chance to make
their opinions known to New Zealand Royal Commission on genetic modification
(Antipodes, 6 May).
Selwyn Yorke of the NZ Life Sciences Network told the ABA
conference that the commission will accept submissions via the Net. 鈥淚 am sure
many Australians (and New Zealanders living in Australia) will take the
opportunity 鈥� to have a say,鈥� he told the conference. I鈥檓 sure he鈥檚
right.