PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005:
REGULATION
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
OCTOBER, 2005
Contents
1. Research context ............................................................................................ 1
Background .................................................................................................. 1
The nature of public attitudes .......................................................................... 1
Research design ............................................................................................ 2
2. Research findings ........................................................................................... 3
2.1 Responsibility for regulation ...................................................................... 3
2.2 Awareness of regulators ............................................................................ 3
2.3 Trust in regulators .................................................................................... 4
2.4 Opinions on rules and regulation ................................................................ 5
List of Figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Methodology ............................................................................................ 2
Responsibility for regulation (unprompted) .................................................. 3
Awareness of regulatory organisations ........................................................ 4
Trust in organisations to regulate ............................................................... 5
Agreement with statements regarding rules and regulations .......................... 6
List of Tables
Table 1. Demographic differences in views on rules and regulations ............................. 6
Public Awareness Research 2005: Regulation
1. Research context
Background
Biotechnology Australia's Public Awareness Program aims to provide members of the
community with the information they need to make more informed choices regarding the
adoption of biotechnologies.
Public attitudes are a crucial issue in the development of the Australian biotechnology
sector, and public understanding of the science involved is important. However, there is
as great a need for scientists (and policymakers) to understand the public's needs and
concerns. Therefore, a need to understand the underlying drivers of community attitudes
relating to biotechnology is crucial.
The nature of public attitudes
There has been a trend towards increasingly complex analysis of applications of
technology from a simple risk-benefit analysis with some consideration of its ethical
underpinnings, to a more considered analysis in terms of both the process of
development and the outcomes (for individuals, industry and society) of the application.
Five key factors have been identified that underlie the public's acceptance of applications
of biotechnologies1. These are:

Information — Information on what biotechnologies are and are not capable of,
provided by a credible source.

Regulation — Confidence that regulatory safeguards are in place to ensure the
safety of the public and the environment.

Consultation — A belief that the public has been appropriately consulted and
given the opportunity for input into the development of biotechnology.

Consumer choice — The ability of the consumer to either accept or reject each
particular application of biotechnology.

Consumer benefit — A perceived societal and individual benefit for each
application.
Finally, the rapid developments and advances in biotechnology mean that attitudes and
acceptance relating to biotechnology, as well as the associations between them, are likely
to change over time. It is important that these changes and explored and understood. To
track these changes, research on behalf of Biotechnology Australia has been conducted
every two years since 1999. This report provides details on the 2005 research conducted
by Eureka Strategic Research.
Social causes of public concerns about developments in biotechnology in Australia:
Comparisons with other countries and lessons for Asia. By Craig Cormick. Accessed on
the Biotechnology Australia website.
1
1
Public Awareness Research 2005: Regulation
Research design
A three-phase research program was employed, as illustrated in the following diagram.
Figure 1. Methodology
The CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) survey involved 1,067
respondents, between 18 and 75 years of age, which provided a 95% confidence interval
of no more than ±3.0%. Survey respondents were selected from the electronic White
Pages and were stratified by location (by state and territory, and then into capital and
non-capital) to ensure that the sample was in proportion to the population. Broad age
and gender quotas were also applied, within each location, once again to ensure the
sample was proportionally representative. (More details on the research design are in the
document Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview.)
2
Public Awareness Research 2005: Regulation
2. Research findings
2.1 Responsibility for regulation
Respondents were asked to list (unprompted) the organisations that they believed were
responsible for the regulation of gene technology in Australia. Results are shown in
Figure 22.
Figure 2. Responsibility for regulation (unprompted)
The Federal Government (29.2%) was the source that was cited most often as being
responsible for the regulation of gene technology in Australia, followed by the CSIRO
(11.3%) and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) (10.9%). A large
proportion of respondents (43.1%) could not name any source that they believed to be
responsible for regulation.
2.2 Awareness of regulators
For each of the following five organisations involved in regulation, respondents (who had
not previously named them unprompted) were asked whether they had heard of them.
These results are displayed in Figure 33.
It should be noted that an earlier survey question provided respondents with a list of
potential sources of information about gene technology. It is possible that in their
answers to the current question respondents were recalling the names of organisations
that they had heard in the earlier question regarding information sources. These results
should therefore be interpreted with caution.
2
3
Public Awareness Research 2005: Regulation
Figure 3. Awareness of regulatory organisations
Almost all respondents (93.5%) had heard of Australian Quarantine and Inspection
Service (AQIS) and the majority (61.3%) was aware of Food Standards Australia and
New Zealand (FSANZ). Less than a third had heard of the other organisations listed, with
OGTR (22.8%) being the organisation of which the fewest respondents were aware.
The group discussions revealed that, while many had not necessarily given any thought
to the regulation of gene technology, they assumed and hoped that someone was looking
out for the public. Few participants were aware of the current regulatory system, but
many believed that "the government" was probably responsible for regulation.
"Aren't the government the regulators?"
In terms of what the regulation consisted of, participants cited legislation that was in
place banning certain practices, such as cloning and growing GM crops. One of the more
well-informed participants said:
"At the moment there are strict controls over where it's one, how it's done and who
can do it."
2.3 Trust in regulators
For each organisation that respondents had at least heard of, respondents were asked
whether they trusted that organisation to regulate gene technology in Australia. The
results are shown in Figure 4.
This graph shows the percentage of respondents who claimed that they had heard of
each organisation. It should not be taken to imply any awareness of their regulatory role.
3
4
Public Awareness Research 2005: Regulation
Figure 4. Trust in organisations to regulate
The organisations that the greatest proportion of respondents trusted to regulate were
the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA; 79.3%) and AQIS
(79.2%). Approximately the same proportion of respondents said they trusted FSANZ
(69.9%), OGTR (68.3%) and Biosecurity Australia (65.3%) to regulate gene technology.
2.4 Opinions on rules and regulation
Agreement with statements regarding rules and regulations
Survey respondents asked the extent to which they agreed with several statements
about the control and regulation of gene technology in Australia. Results are displayed in
Figure 5.
5
Public Awareness Research 2005: Regulation
Figure 5. Agreement with statements regarding rules and regulations
The majority (35% agreed and 43% agreed strongly) agreed that public consultation and
participation improves regulation. A similar proportion (24% agreed and 27% agreed
strongly) believed that farmers need to be GM-free to stay competitive, as believed that
farmers need access to GM technology (31% agreed and 25% agreed strongly) in order
to do so. A majority (35% agreed and 20% agreed strongly) also agreed that we have to
accept some risk from GM for Australia to remain competitive. Many felt unable to
comment on whether Australia's current rules are sufficient (25%) and whether they are
being followed (30%).
Table 3 outlines differences in respondents' agreement with the statements above based
on demographic variables. In general, older, female and those less educated had more
conservative views in terms of rules and regulations.
Table 1. Demographic differences in views on rules and regulations
The current rules in Australia are
sufficient
The current rules in Australia are
followed by those working on gene
technology
We have to accept some degree of risk
from gene technology if it enhances
Australia's economic competitiveness
Public consultation and participation
improves the regulation of gene
technology
Australian farmers need access to gene
technology to stay internationally
competitive
Less likely to agree
More likely to agree
Older
Younger
Without children in
household
With children in
household
Older Females English
speaking background
Younger Males NonEnglish speaking
background
Older
Younger
Females
Males
6
Public Awareness Research 2005: Regulation
Australian farms and foods need to be
free of genetically modified organisms
to stay internationally competitive
Less likely to agree
More likely to agree
Younger More educated
Males
Older Less educated
Females
Attitudes towards rules and regulations
Throughout the discussions, participants made frequent reference to the need for gene
technology to be "controlled" or regulated. For example, on participant said in relation to
stem cell research:
"As long as they're controlled — some sort of body that we can trust and that
you've heard enough about."
Regulation was considered by participants to be necessary, but not sufficient. That is, it
was generally thought that, if gene technologies were to be pursued, regulation could
offer the general public some level of protection. However, it was certainly not
considered to be any guarantee of safety. Where participants felt that an application of
gene technology was worth pursuing, despite potential risk, regulation was seen to
provide additional reassurance. However, in some cases, participants felt that the risks
posed or potential for misuses was so great, that regulation offered little comfort. They
felt that, in the unlikely event that something went wrong, there was simply too much to
lose.
"There's just too much scope for things to go wrong."
"There will always be people who will try and push the boundaries of the
regulation."
In cases where participants disapproved of the technology outright (e.g. on religious
grounds), regulation offered no comfort.
In discussions, two aspects of regulation were discussed — the making of the rules and
the enforcing of them. These are each discussed in turn below.
Some participants mentioned that politicians were not in an appropriate position to act as
decision-makers in areas such as gene technology. It was deemed important by
participants that experts, who understand the science involved and are aware of public
opinion, advise politicians on regulatory issues.
"Politicians are not experts. They can only act upon advice."
There was support for efforts by the government to conduct public consultation, to
ensure the public is informed and their views canvassed. Nevertheless, many individuals
admitted that they did not have the inclination to participate in such a process. Indeed,
most participants felt that they were not equipped to make, nor wanted to be responsible
for, decisions that impact upon the whole population. A few participants even expressed
concern that decision makers may get caught up in uninformed public opinion. Generally,
participants in the research felt they would be satisfied with having the opportunity to
decide for themselves and their families whether or not to adopt specific applications of
gene technology. For example, provided they had enough information, most participants
were reasonably content to deciding for themselves whether they purchased GM foods or
GM-free alternatives.
7
Public Awareness Research 2005: Regulation
There did not appear to be a pressing desire for citizen-led regulation of biotechnology,
provided decision-makers understood, and took into account, the views of the public.
Participants emphasised that the process of developing appropriate rules should be
transparent, to allay concerns that they were overly influenced by those in a position to
profit from any particular outcome. For example, participants were concerned that if
multinationals were able to sway politicians decisions, regulation of the technology were
controlled by chemical companies, regulation of gene technology would be driven by their
motivations of corporate greed and power, rather than by what was likely to be in the
best interests of the public.
Nevertheless, participants recognised that despite best efforts, whoever made the rules
there was the potential for mistakes to be made. Thus, while most participants would
support rules based on the above-mentioned model, they recognised that it was not
infallible.
"They are only human, they make mistakes. Look at all the approved drugs coming
onto the market . . . 5, 10, 20 years later you find out about them [their adverse
effects]."
They were also aware that, due to the diversity of beliefs about gene technology in the
Australian population, no one decision or set of rules would be satisfactory to all.
Participants also recognised that rules are only as beneficial as the manner in which they
are enforced.
"It depends on who's enforcing the rules and how stringently they make sure
they're sticking to them.. .cause you can make all the rules but you might not stick
to them."
Some participants perceived the need for mechanisms to be implemented to "keep the
regulator honest". Many thought the regulator(s) should be answerable to consumer
bodies and the general public. Some wanted to see regulatory responsibility shared
amongst a number of organisations.
"I would want one that splintered off and answered to various departments and
governing bodies because you can get very in-house and tell people what you want
them to know."
Participants also felt that, in order for rules to be policed effectively, the regulators would
need sufficient expertise (as high as the scientists themselves) to ensure complete
awareness and understanding of the technologies that were being pursued. There was
also the recognition that regulators would need access to sufficient resources if they were
to be able to do their job properly. However, some participants appeared to resent any
resources that such a task would demand, believing it preferable for them to be allocated
to areas perceived to be of more importance (e.g. education and health).
8