COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO BIOTECHNOLOGY ... - industry… · The sample was stratified by location ... Sampling methods employing a disproportionate ... in the biotechnology industry

COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO BIOTECHNOLOGY REPORT ON REGULATION

Prepared for Biotechnology Australia

Eureka Project 4001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Research context 1

Research design 3

Research findings 6 Awareness and trust of regulators 7 Attitudes towards regulation 9

Conclusions 14

BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO BIOTECHNOLOGY

JUNE 2007 | PAGE 1

RESEARCH CONTEXT

Biotechnology Australia

Biotechnology Australia is a multi-departmental Australian Government agency responsible for

managing, with its partners, the National Biotechnology Strategy (NBS) and coordinating non-

regulatory biotechnology issues for the Australian Government. Biotechnology Australia’s goal

is to ensure Australia captures the benefits arising from the medical, agricultural and

environmental application of biotechnology, while protecting the safety of people and the

environment.

Importance of community attitudes

Community attitudes are a crucial issue in the development of the Australian biotechnology

sector. If Australians are not in favour of certain applications of biotechnology, efforts made by

scientists on research and development will be constricted, and a host of potential benefits in

fields ranging from medicine to food to textiles are likely to be lost. There is a need to

understand the underlying drivers of community acceptance of biotechnology and ways in

which public rejection of biotechnology may be minimised - both to inform the public about

biotechnology and to inform scientists of the public’s needs and concerns

The nature of community attitudes

Research has shown that it is no longer sufficient to ask broad questions relating to attitudes

towards, or acceptance of, biotechnology per se, as these measures vary markedly for different

applications of biotechnology and gene technology. Issues that may be taken into account

when evaluating an application are:

Potential harm to humans, animals or the environment

1 This section outlines the background

to the project, and specifies our understanding of the research

objectives


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 2

Regulation and control of the process of development

Scope of benefits: humanity, scientific career advancement, or corporate profit

Potential for unforeseen outcomes to occur

Trade-offs may occur among these factors. For instance, harm to animals may be acceptable

to some if the application can save human lives, but not if it only is for corporate profit.

The need for research

This research represents the fifth wave of Biotechnology Australia’s ongoing attitudinal

research. As such, it is an opportunity to identify and understand any new issues that have

arisen, as well as any changes in community attitudes and their drivers, since 2005. The

increased understanding of social drivers of attitudes regarding biotechnology will be used to

identify differences in the various audiences and stakeholders. Finally, the research will enable

the success of some aspects of the Public Awareness Program to be measured.

The enhanced understanding of community attitudes and concerns that will result from this

research will be used to guide the further development of the Public Awareness Program. It

will uncover any significant changes, new problem areas and priority targets in terms of public

attitudes to be addressed. It will also provide information on the most effective means by

which information can be imparted, and guidance in terms of the conduct of further community

consultations.

Research objectives

Overall, the aim of this project was to update and further develop understanding of the

community’s awareness of, attitudes towards and concerns about different applications of

biotechnology, and the ways in which these drive community acceptance. In addition, research

aimed to understand community aspirations for biotechnology, information sources, and the

success of current public information and awareness strategies.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 3

RESEARCH DESIGN

To meet these objectives, a multi-stage quantitative-qualitative methodology was undertaken,

as illustrated in the following diagram.

A multi-stage research program

Initially a brief literature review was conducted to ensure that Eureka was fully aware of any

new developments in the area of biotechnology. Following this, a phase of exploratory

2 In this section, details of our

proposed research design are provided, as well as our rationale for

using this methodology

Exploratory qualitative research

Questionnaire design and pre-piloting

Quantitative survey

Explanatory qualitative research

Reporting of findings and strategic recommendations

Review of recent research and literature

Exploratory qualitative research

Questionnaire design and pre-piloting

Quantitative survey

Explanatory qualitative research

Reporting of findings and strategic recommendations

Review of recent research and literature


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 4

qualitative research was conducted in order to identify issues, attitudes, motivations and

behaviours which may have arisen since the last wave of the research. Quantitative research

was then carried out to measure the incidence of awareness, perceptions and attitudes relating

to biotechnology. This phase utilised a split sample CATI/ online methodology. Finally, an

explanatory phase of qualitative research was conducted in order to investigate and explain in

detail the findings from the survey.

Sample

Exploratory qualitative phase

The sample structure for the exploratory qualitative research is shown in the table below.

Table 1. Sample structure for exploratory qualitative research

Age

18-30 years 31-65 years

Non-tertiary Sydney Wagga Wagga Education level

Tertiary Wagga Wagga Sydney

This phase comprised of four discussion groups, with the variables of education, age and

location (metropolitan and non-metropolitan) factored into the structure. The discussion

groups were 2 hours in duration, and all participants received an incentive of $70.

Quantitative phase

This phase of the research has traditionally been conducted over the telephone via CATI

(Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing). This wave, however, Biotechnology Australia

sought to migrate the study to an online methodology. For a survey of this length, an online

methodology is beneficial to participants, as they are able to complete the survey at a time of

their choosing and over multiple sittings if desired. There are also notable cost savings.

A split CATI/online sample methodology was deemed the most prudent approach to facilitate

the migration as this would enable clean comparison of data over time. The total sample

consisted of 1,067 Australians between 18 and 75 years of age. Approximately half the

interviews (n=534) were conducted via CATI and the other half (n=533) were conducted

online.

The telephone sample was recruited using List Assisted Random Digit Dialling (LARDD)

methodology, to yield a more representative sample than the Electronic White Pages (EWP).

The sample was stratified by location (nationally by state/territory and, within these, by


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 5

rural/regional/metropolitan areas) in such a way that the sample was in proportion to the

population. In addition, within each location stratum, broad age and gender quotas were

applied, again proportional to the population. Sampling methods employing a disproportionate

chance of selection were used to deal with groups who were known to be less inclined to do

surveys or more difficult to contact (e.g. males and younger persons) in order to be

representative. Importantly, this approach mirrors the approach of the previous wave of

research, thus ensuring comparability. The questionnaire averaged 29 minutes duration.

For the online methodology, samples were sourced from an online panel, that is, individuals

who have opted to receive email invitations to participate in surveys from our fieldwork

supplier. Stratification and quota sampling occurred as per the telephone methodology.

Explanatory qualitative phase

The sample structure for the explanatory qualitative phase was based on two main variables,

location and level of support, and is presented below. In the recruitment process, participants

were required to rate their attitude towards the use of gene technology in today’s society on a

scale of 0 to 10 (where 0 is completely opposed and 10 is fully supportive). Once again, the

duration of the groups was 2 hours, and a $70 incentive was provided.

Table 2. Sample structure for explanatory qualitative research

Location

Bathurst Sydney (City) Hurstville

Low 31-65 years 18-30 years 31-65 years Level of support

Medium 18-30 years 31-65 years 18-30 years

High 18-30 years 18-30 years 31-65 years

In the following chapter, results from the qualitative and quantitative phases are combined and

presented together for each issue.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 6

RESEARCH FINDINGS

This section details the findings from the quantitative and qualitative phases of research

pertaining to regulation of biotechnology. Where it would assist the reader to understand the

research findings, verbatim quotations from research participants have been included to

illustrate the range of views typically expressed. The findings cover awareness, trust of

regulators and attitudes towards regulation more generally.

The following points are relevant to the interpretation of the quantitative findings:

Data from telephone interviews (not online) has been used for this wave’s analysis, in order

to ensure methodologically consistent data are compared over time. Previous waves of

research were conducted over the telephone.

Significant trends over time are denoted with a circle (increase) or box (decrease)

A number of questionnaire changes were made to meet the needs of stakeholders involved

in the research. Comparisons over time are therefore only possible for some questions.

One important change was that definitions of biotechnology, gene technology and genetic

modification were provided at the commencement of the survey questionnaire and before

each of the later group discussions. This was done at the request of stakeholders, to avoid

any ambiguity in meaning when using these terms.

3 This section presents the findings for community attitudes and perceptions

of regulation of biotechnology


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 7

Awareness and trust of regulators

Survey participants were initially asked, without prompting, to name any organisations that

they believed were responsible for the regulation of gene technology in Australia. Results are

shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Unprompted awareness of regulators

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.7

0.7

1.1

3.7

12.0

12.2

48.1

0 20 40 60

BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA

NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL(NH&MRC)

THE OFFICE OF THE GENE TECHNOLOGY REGULATOR

BIOSECURITY AUSTRALIA

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

STATE GOVERNMENT

FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND (FSANZ)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & AGEING

NONE

CSIRO

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

DONT KNOW

%

Base: all CATI (n=534)

The large majority of participants were unable to mention any specific organizations that they

believed were responsible for regulation of gene technology in Australia. By far, the most

common response was ‘don’t know’ at 48%. The only organization cited by more than a

handful of participants was the CSIRO, mentioned by 12% of participants. The Federal

Government was also cited by 12% participants, but no further information was provided

regarding the department or agency assumed to be involved. A very small number (less than

1% of participants) mentioned FSANZ, Biosecurity Australia, the Office of the Gene Technology

Regulator (OGTR), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and

Biotechnology Australia.

Following the open-ended awareness question, survey participants were prompted with the

names of six organisations involved in regulation, and were asked to indicate which of these

they were aware of. Results are displayed below in Figure 2, alongside the corresponding

results from Wave 4.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 8

Figure 2. Prompted awareness of regulators

94

61

34 3423

93

68

32 29

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

AustralianQuarantine and

InspectionService

Food StandardsAustralia New

Zealand (FSANZ)

BiosecurityAustralia

AustraliaPesticides and

VetinaryMedicinesAuthority(APVMA)

Office of the GeneTechnologyRegulator

%

2005 (n=1118) 2007 (n=534)

Base: all CATI

Awareness of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) far exceeded awareness

of other regulatory organisations. Almost all participants (93%) indicated that they had heard

of the AQIS, a similar level as in the previous wave of research. Awareness of Food Standards

Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) was also fairly high, at 68%, and had increased

significantly since 2005 (up from 61%).

Less than a third of participants had heard of the other regulatory organisations. Awareness

was particularly low for the Office the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), at 10%, which

declined significantly since 2005 (down from 23%).

Survey participants who said they were aware of any of these agencies were subsequently

asked whether they trusted that organisation to regulate gene technology in Australia. Figure 3

below presents the results for this question for the current and previous waves of research.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 9

Figure 3. Trust to regulate gene technology

7970 68

79

6564 63 62 59

48

0

20

40

60

80

100

AustraliaPesticides and

VetinaryMedicines

Authority (n=156)

Food StandardsAustralia New

Zealand (n=363)

Office of theGene TechnologyRegulator (n=55)

AustralianQuarantine and

InspectionService (n=497)

BiosecurityAustralia (n=172)

%

2005 2007

Base: If aware

Among those aware, perceptions of trust were very similar across five of the six regulatory

organisations. Around six in ten participants indicated that they would trust the Australian

Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (64%), Food Standards Australia New Zealand

(63%), the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (62%) and the Australian Quarantine and

Inspection Service (59%). Trust of Biosecurity Australia was somewhat lower at 48%.

Compared to last wave, trust of all regulatory organisations, with the exception of the OGTR,

declined significantly. As discussed in more detail below, it appears that the nature of

participants’ attitudes towards politics generally influenced their feedback on government

regulation of biotechnology. This was more pronounced at the time this wave of research was

carried out, due to the upcoming federal election.

Attitudes towards regulation

Two statements relating to the rigorousness of and compliance with regulation of gene

technology were presented to survey participants. For both statements, participants were

asked to indicate their level of agreement.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 10

Figure 4. Attitudes towards regulation

1214 19 14 31% 10%

1318 16 13 30% 9%

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

The rules that regulatethe use of genetechnology are

sufficiently rigorous

The rules that regulatethe use of genetechnology arecomplied with

Disagreement strong mild

Agreementmild strong

Neutral Don't know


1214 19 14 31% 10%

1318 16 13 30% 9%

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

The rules that regulatethe use of genetechnology are

sufficiently rigorous

The rules that regulatethe use of genetechnology arecomplied with



Neutral Don't know


A large proportion of participants expressed no opinions on the rigorousness of the rules that

regulate gene technology (30% neutral) or the extent to which these rules are complied with

(31% neutral).

There were almost equal proportions of participants who agreed (29%) and who disagreed

(31%) that the rules that regulate the use of gene technology are sufficiently rigorous.

However, there was slightly more agreement (33%) than disagreement (26%) that the rules

that regulate the use of gene technology are complied with. It would seem therefore that

people are more trusting of compliance than of regulation itself.

Survey participants were also presented with a series of statements relating to broader aspects

of regulation of biotechnology. Again they were asked to indicate their level of agreement.

Figure 5 below presents these results.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 11

Figure 5. Further attitudes towards regulation

1617 13 24 28% 3%

1421 19 21 25% 0%

716 13 49 14% 1%

76 21 44 20% 2%

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Public consultation andparticipation improves regulation

of gene tech

Privacy law s should preventgov'ts and other orgs fromaccessing info on people's

genetic make-up

We should accept some riskfrom gene tech if enhances

economic comp'ness

We should reject gene tech if itreduces our economic

competitiveness



Neutral Don't know

There was strong agreement that public consultation and participation improves the regulation

of gene technology (44% agreed strongly and 21% agreed somewhat) and only a small level of

disagreement (6% disagreed strongly and 7% disagreed somewhat). There was also strong

agreement that privacy laws should protect against disclosure of information on a person’s

genetic make-up (49% agreed strongly and 13% agreed somewhat), accompanied with a fairly

low level of disagreement (16% disagreed strongly and 7% disagreed somewhat).

Views on the influence of economic competitiveness on decisions relating to gene technology

were very mixed. There were similar levels of agreement and disagreement for both

statements, resulting in nett agreement close to zero (+5% and +4% respectively). There

were also high proportions of ‘neutral’ responses (25% and 28% respectively), indicating

participants’ lack of decisiveness on this issue.

Qualitative feedback

Participants in the group discussion had low knowledge and awareness of the regulation of

biotechnology, especially with regard to food and agriculture. Low awareness was even

apparent among the rural group discussions, where better knowledge might be expected. Only

people who lived outside rural population centres and those who worked in agriculture were

confident in discussing such issues. Knowledge of the moratoria on the growing of GM crops

was extremely low in both rural and metropolitan groups.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 12

In the absence of information on the actual regulatory arrangements, many group participants

simply assumed that regulations were in place and that the government had been diligent in

regulating the health dimensions (and not just the commercial aspects) of biotechnology.

Others, however, expressed doubts about the adequacy of regulation (again, mostly in

agriculture). Some people considered proper regulation of GM food crops (in particular) to be a

critical issue.

You pretty much just hope that they do adequate testing – that it’s as accurate as possible, and that everything’s fine.

It would be far more acceptable for me if there were stringent controls on the use of the technology.

There was some suspicion among group discussion participants about government’s impartiality

in the biotechnology industry and its role in promoting biotechnology. These sentiments

appeared to reflect a wider distrust of politics, more pronounced at this time with an upcoming

federal election. There was also the view among some that government is overly supportive of

industry (of whatever kind), sometimes at consumers’ expense.

Group discussion participants were in agreement that decision-making needs to be based on

independent, scientific advice so that ‘ordinary’ people can be confident in government

regulation of biotechnology in food and agriculture. For this to occur, it was felt that the

process for evaluating the safety of such applications needs to be protected from political or

commercial influence, and even the perception of such influence. At the present time, there is

the perception by some that ‘vested interests’ are too heavily involved in regulatory decisions.

These participants felt that, while commercial considerations should be considered, the

involvement of corporations should be minimised, with an emphasis placed on human health

and the interests of farming communities. Group discussion participants consistently

nominated the CSIRO as a trustworthy and independent source of scientific advice for the

purposes of decision-making.

[The CSIRO] seem to know things! It’s more positive spin, it’s more human-related and it’s not government. It’s government-funded but it seems more to have people’s health in mind.

I’ve always placed a lot of credibility in reporting from the CSIRO, because they’ve been a long established Australian institution and their research has helped agriculture a great deal.

If the public had faith in that independent body, whether it's the CSIRO or anybody else, then they would say, “Yeah, OK, fair cop, you've said it's OK, we'll believe you.” But if the average person is saying, ”No, I don't know enough,”


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 13

and it's a controversial issue, then it's up to that independent body and the government or whoever else wants to introduce it to educate the people. It's too controversial.

Reflecting general confidence in the health sector, group discussion participants expressed

greater trust in the regulation and monitoring of biotechnology in health and medicine

compared to food and agriculture. As well as having more respect for (and better knowledge

of) the regulatory arrangements in the health sector, these people expressed a higher regard

for the ethical standards upheld in the medical community.

Despite having more trust in the regulation of the medical aspects of biotechnology, many

group discussion participants expressed concerns about the degree to which political and

religious considerations influenced the recent stem cell debate. Reiterating the view that such

decisions should be made on the basis of science rather than religion, these people were

concerned that religion dominated the debate in parliament and in the media.

The government should be reflective of the views of people, but should look to those who have the expertise … scientific policy should be steered by scientists rather than politics

Scientists don’t make decisions based on emotion, and that’s in my mind what it’s really about … and that’s all that [the health minister] is on about: his electorate’s emotions and what’s driving him, and his own personal religious beliefs, which should have nothing to do with anything.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 14

CONCLUSIONS

At the present time and across the community, there is a noteworthy suspicion of government’s

role in the regulation of biotechnology and the relationship between government and big

business, with a general distrust of politics carrying over into community attitudes on these

more specific issues. Accordingly, the public needs reassurance that government regulation in

this area is impartial and guided by input from stakeholders. At the same time, the community

would like to see a reduced role for religious considerations in regulatory decision-making and

an increased role for scientific expertise. Participants showed greatest concern for GM crops

and foods (compared with other applications of biotechnology), therefore food and agriculture

should be the focus of future communication about the regulation of biotechnology.

4 This section presents the conclusions

of the research

BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

JUNE 2007

Documents

COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO BIOTECHNOLOGY ... - industry… · The sample was stratified by location ... Sampling methods employing a disproportionate ... in the biotechnology industry