Recent research has shown that the Australian public
have a limited understanding of the organisations
responsible for the regulation of gene technology in
Australia, however they do desire the technology to be
strongly regulated.
The report,
Public Awareness Research 2005: Regulation, which is
based upon a series of biennial tracking surveys
conducted since 1999 for the Australian Government
agency
Biotechnology Australia and released today, looked
at levels of awareness of, and trust in, key regulatory
bodies, as well as attitudes towards regulation in
general.
Manager of Public
Awareness for Biotechnology Australia, Mr Craig Cormick,
said, “Over the six years of the study there has been a
slow increase in the awareness of the key regulators,
but no major increase in knowledge of what the different
agencies do and how they do it.
“It appeared more
important for the public to know that somebody was
undertaking regulation than to know exactly who was
responsible for it,”
When asked who was
responsible for the regulation of gene technology in
Australia, the Federal Government (29.2%) was the source
that was cited most often. The CSIRO (11.3%) and the
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) (10.9%)
were the most often cited individual organisation. A
large proportion of respondents (43.1%) could not name
any source that they believed to be responsible for
regulation.
Looking at trust, those
organisations with the highest ratings were the
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
(79.3%) and AQIS (79.2%). Approximately the same
proportion of respondents said they trusted Food
Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) (69.9%), OGTR
(68.3%) and Biosecurity Australia (65.3%) to regulate
gene technology.
“The general public
considers regulation to be necessary, and that it is
currently at levels that can offer them some
protection. However, they generally would like to see
more regulation than less.”
Mr Cormick also said
that the majority of the public (73%) agreed strongly
that public consultation and participation improves
regulation, however, many felt unable to comment on
whether Australia’s current rules were sufficient (25%)
and whether they were being followed (30%).
“In addition, there did
not appear to be a pressing desire for citizen-led
regulation of biotechnology, providing decision-makers
understood, and took into account, the views of the
public,” Mr Cormick added.
“Participants also
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.”
The key regulators of
gene technology in Australia, and their responsibilities
are:
- Office of the Gene
Technology Regulator (OGTR) which regulates the use
of gene technology
- Food Standards
Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) which is responsible
for the regulation of food, including food produced
using gene technology
- Australian
Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) which
regulates imports of quarantine significance,
including genetically modified organisms that may
pose a risk
- Australian
Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines
Authority (APVMA) which is responsible for the
system which evaluates, registers and regulates
agricultural and veterinary chemicals.
- Therapeutic Goods
Administration (TGA) which provides a national
framework for the regulation of therapeutic
products, including genetically modified
pharmaceuticals to ensure their quality, safety and
efficacy.
The research study,
undertaken by Eureka Strategic Research, involved a
phone poll of 1067 people on broad biotechnology issues,
and was supported with 13 focus groups.
Full research report in
PDF format:
Public Awareness Research 2005: Regulation
