Bioeconomics - Craig Cormick

Thank you for coming along this afternoon everyone. I am going to talk through a presentation using some slides.

Some of these sound like science fiction, but these are all factual realities that are being worked on. And while they all sound good - society is worried about them.

Biotechnology has so much promise to improve our society, yet:

- we get most of our information on biotechnology from the media - and yet we don't really trust the media.

- our understanding of biotechnology is being defined almost totally outside of a scientific context and

- the Science is being developed almost totally outside of a societal context.

As a result we see a new technology - with great potentials - being viewed primarily as a new technology with great risks.

So I want to look at what our society's understanding of biotechnology is - and where that understanding comes from.

First let's look at some of the key messages we found from focus groups on biotechnology issues that we held around the country. Consumer concerns relate to:

- Lack of good information

- Concern over media coverage

- Need to make own decisions based on information on both the benfits and the risks

On an unaided basis respondents tended to describe the following as the most important biotechnology issues:

- The feeling that not enough is known about this complex and intimidating issue but, "I feel like I should know".

- Misunderstanding of biotechnology causing many to attribute recent disasters to biotechnology for example, the general belief that it was the cause of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth in England.

- Negative perceptions: that it is unnatural?we should not be playing God";

- It does not necessarily make things better?A step backwards at an unknown price";

- Biotechnology is out-of and beyond legislative control and in the hands of large profit driven multinational companies;

Fear of unknown long-term consequences;

Dissatisfaction with extreme and unbalanced media reporting of the issue;

Genetic modification of food, specifically the general belief that most food sold in Australia is already genetically modified.

The impending cloning of humans. That is, most respondents believed that human cloning is a reality. "They say they've never cloned people but how do we know."

On an unaided basis the most important biotechnology issues for the majority of respondents related to a lack of understanding and negative attitudes toward the issue on a very general level. That is, very few respondents sited more specific issues that relied on a deeper understanding of biotechnology and related issues (such as, stem cell research, gene therapy, etc) on an unaided basis as important issues.

Risk

To understand what is driving attitudes towards gene technology and biotechnology - we need to look a little at perceptions of risk - as there are such strong perceptions that is a dangerous technology.

Professor Bernard Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh in the USA has developed a measurement of loss of Life Expectancy - whereby he has estimated the days of life lost from different behaviours.

This highest is smoking, which could expect to lower you life expectancy by about 6 1/2 years.

The next is air pollution, which will lower an north American's life by about 80 days.

Drinking several cups of coffee a day would lead to a loss of life of about a month.

Nuclear power used to generate electricity leads to a loss of life of about a day and a half.

And plane crashes lead to an average loss of life of about a single day.

But this is not how the majority of the population view it - with nuclear power generation often being perceived to be the highest risk.

Perceived Risk

Paul Slovic has developed a graph of perceived risk and has charted some 90 different risks, from nuclear weapons down to riding a bike to ice skating.

He depicts them by scales or low to high risk and known and unknown risk.

Interestingly, looking at his high perceived risks we see that nuclear weapons is more known than nuclear power - and the highest anxieties lie in the High Risk and Highly Unknown areas of the chart.

He has also correlated the responses he has received and found that the dominant factor in determining perceived risk is the perceived threat of future generations and the potential for global catastrophe. There is also the issue of who bears the risk and who reaps the benefits.

At its most simple level, new technologies are assessed by a simple risk-benefit analysis.

Take a mobile phone - do the benefits of using it outweigh the risks of perhaps zapping my brain by using it?

For a comparison in biotechnology - we know that modifying the genetic material of plants - has higher perceived benefits than risks.

But other applications, like crossing animal genes and plant genes, is perceived to have higher risks than the benefits.

Now this is something very new that has only emerged this year from a major qualitative and quantitative study we've done into community attitudes towards gene technology.

One of the major findings - relevant to attitude formation is that we've found that people are becoming more sophisticated in regard to how they make decisions about accepting or rejecting a technology.

It is no longer a simple risk benefit analysis, but people want to know both about the outcome and the process of the technology - which means - who benefits from the technology? The community or a company? And is the process harmful or harmless to the environment?

Ethical concerns regarding the use (Outcome) of modifying genetic material in human cells are best seen by survey's that show there has been a significant decline in perceptions of acceptability (44% in 2001 and 51% in 1999) and benefits (55% in 2001 and 65% in 1999) associated with this application.

Exploration of modifying genetic material in human cells in the focus groups suggest that acceptability of this issues is centered around concerns regarding how this application could be used; the outcome. If this application was able to improve human health then this was felt to be an ethical and acceptable application. However, many respondents were concerned that this application would be used for cosmetic purposes - respondents tended to feel that this is unacceptable for the following reasons:

The potential to limit individuality. Respondents were concerned that there would be increased social pressure for people to be modified cosmetically to conform to narrow commercially defined definitions of beauty.

It was felt that this application could be used to change or select cosmetic features there was potential for this to be abused in an extreme and dangerous way.

Like cosmetic surgery this would be expensive and available only to the wealthy.

There are currently no controls over how this application is used or developed.

Ethical concerns influencing negative perceptions of the modification of genetic material in plant cells using animal genetic material show the following. The General Population Survey suggests that attitudes toward the modification of genetic material in plant cells using animal genetic material have declined significantly since1999 (31% in 2001 and 51% in 1999).

Ethical concerns regarding this application appear to be influencing the negative perceptions. Respondents were most concerned by this application. They felt that combining plant and animal genetic material unnatural and disturbing. Interfering with nature in this manner was seen to be dangerous and unethical by many respondents. Most respondents felt that this application raised very difficult, complex, disturbing and unanswerable ethical questions, the most obvious one being; "What is it an animal or a plant?" Furthermore, most respondents could not see any benefit or any strong reasons to use or develop this application.

Many respondents were also concerned about the issue of harming animals in the collecting of animal genetic material in the process. The long term unforeseen consequences of this application were considered particularly dangerous. The majority of respondents felt their needed to be strict control (which is currently lacking) over development of this application.

Health Benefits Of Using Human Genes In Medicines & Vaccines Are Easily Identified.

Attitudes toward the use of human genes in medicines and vaccines appear to have improved since 1999.

Exploration of this issue in the focus groups suggest that as the health benefits associated with this application are easily identified respondents were generally positive toward its use. That is, as respondents generally assumed that this application could improve or save human life and were therefore positive toward this application of gene technology. In addition several respondents thought that as diseases are becoming more resistant to current medication, development of new medicines such as this has become necessary.

Respondents were asked why they thought the 2001 General Population Survey indicated that there has been a decline in attitudes toward the use of some applications of gene technology in medicine since 1999. Overall participants felt this decline was related to:

Increased awareness via irresponsible commercial media attention toward the extreme and strange uses of biotechnology and gene technology. This was seen to be both in mis-reporting, negative reports or lack of reporting on issues.

A sense that this is an area changing rapidly in an uncontrolled manner. However, respondents tended to believe that the main reason why attitudes toward the use of biotechnology in medicine have declined since 1999 because of the rapid and uncontrolled development of cloning, and especially the feeling that humans will soon be cloned.

A key area of concern that emerged at all three phases of the research was concern regarding the control of biotechnology and "gene technology" in Australia and internationally.

Issues regarding the control of "gene technology were explored in the message development focus groups.

Most respondents felt that biotechnology is changing at such a rapid pace that developments can not possibly be anticipated or legislated against.

In addition, it was generally felt that Australian society and government are powerless compared to the international financial and political power of the large multinational companies driving biotechnological innovations.

A key component of concern was the perception that there are no or adequate controls over the process, motivations and outcomes of the development and application biotechnology and gene technology in Australia.

This was particularly a concern for those applications which were seen to raise complex, and disturbing questions about human life.

The concern was that "nothing is being done to manage this", the rationale for this belief was simple, "we would know about it if they were doing anything."

This concurs with the low unaided awareness of regulators of gene technology found in the General Population survey.

Innovation Curve

We also know there is an adoption curve for new technologies - and you can probably fit yourself and your family or friends into the different categories.

The Early Innovators are those who are the first and quickest off the mark - about 3-5% of the population. These people had DVD machines before they were in the shops. (The USA is generally an Early Innovator). Then come the Innovators - about 5-8% they follow the Early Innovators and are often influenced by them.

They bought their DVD the first weeks they were available. Next are the Cautious Adaptors. About 15-20% of the population - who are looking around at what other people have got. Checking out who got it right and who got it wrong before making a decision. They've just bought their DVD machine. They are followed by the majority - who are thinking maybe they'll get a DVD for Christmas this year - and then dropping off in percentages again - we have the late adopters and finally the luddites - who still don't even have a VHS video player.

Australia tends to be a Cautious Adopter and is a fairly early adopter of new technologies, like Gene Technologies - when it is satisfied that other countries have tried them out first - and - the Third and Final Point - IF the technology can fulfil the five fold adoption requirements.

We know that there is a five fold needs scale for consumer acceptance. INFORMATION People need to know sufficient about the technology to understand it basically.

CONSULTATION - People need to know that the community was somehow consulted in the development and application of the technology - so that it was not a multinational plot, neither was it a Government plot.

REGULATION - People need to know that somebody is looking after their safety and checking if this technology is safe.

CONSUMER CHOICE - People want to be able to choose whether to accept the technology or not.

CONSUMER BENEFIT - People want to know that there are actual benefits for them - not just for producers or growers.

You don't need me to tell you what's happening in the media on biotech issues - it's all like this?.OR IS IT?

Overall concern over use of gene technology

So what do we know about people's concerns towards gene technology and what is driving those concerns? Well we know quite a bit actually -

Firstly the majority of Australians express at least some level of concern regarding the use of gene technology - but there are big differences in the levels of concern.

Overall Concerns by Gender

We also know that as far as gene technology is concerned there is only one major demographic distinguishable - which is gender as Females tend to be significantly more concerned than males about the use of gene technology.

There are smaller differences by age, education and location.

We had traditionally been asking people in surveys if they were concerned about gene technology or GM Foods and they always said yes, so we decided that wasn't the right question - and we need a context for their concerns and so asked people to rank GM Food concerns in relation to other food concerns - and we found - surprisingly, that GM Food concerns were the lowest concerns of the four surveyed here.

This survey has been replicated in the USA and UK earlier this year and found similar findings to ours.

27 - Most Applications Perceived As Useful For Society.

The majority of Australian's describe most applications as "useful for society", however 'human genes in animals' and 'Gene technology in food & drink' were not as strongly perceived as useful.

% agree

Using human genes in medicines and vaccines - 86%

Testing embryos for predisposition to disease - 82%

Making plants more pest resistant - 78%

Using human genes in animals for growing organs - 67%

Gene technology in food and drink production - 57%

Since 1999, there has been a significant increase in the number of respondents describing making plants more pest resistant as "definitely" a useful application for society (31% vs 37%).Since 1999, there has been a significant decrease in the number of respondents describing using human genes in animals for growing organs as a definitely useful application for society (29% vs 23%). This is emerging as a prominent issue amongst the Australian population.

Overall perceptions of the usefulness of the other applications have remained stable since 1999.

Note that while respondents report a vague understanding of the role of gene technology in medicine in the focus groups it is rated overall as the most useful application for society.

28 - Most Applications Rated As Risky For Society

Overall the majority of Australian's describe all applications of gene technology as "risky for society".

Using human genes in animals for growing organs (75%) and using gene technology in food and drink production (73%) are the two applications perceived to be the most risky by the Australian public.

Since 1999, there has been a significant increase in the number of respondents agreeing that using human genes in animals for growing organs (75% in 2001 and 66% in 1999) and gene technology in food and drink production are risky applications for society (73% in 2001 vs 67% in 1999).

.Since 1999, there has been a significant decrease in the number of respondent's who definitely agree that these applications are risky, however, overall there has been an increase in the number of respondents who tend to agree these applications are risky.

29 - Most Applications Rated As Morally Acceptable For Society

Overall the majority of Australian's describe most applications as "morally acceptable" for society.

The one exception is using human genes in animals for growing organs where only 47% of the Australian population agree that this is a morally acceptable application for society.

Using human genes in medicines and vaccines (75% agree) and making plants more pest-resistant (72% agree) are perceived to be the two most morally acceptable applications for society.

Since 1999, there has been a significant increase in the perception that the following applications are morally acceptable:

Making plants more pest resistant (20 vs 29%)

Using human genes in medicines for vaccines (22 vs 29%)

Testing Embryos for Pre-disposition to Disease (20vs 25%)

30 - Overall Concern About Gene Technolgy

Consistent with the initial focus groups, the general population survey showed that the majority of the Australian population agree that:

"Many processed foods in Australian supermarkets may contain ingredients produced using gene technology" (73%);

"It is difficult to understand gene technology because of extreme media reporting of the issues" (64%);

Screening for genes which may cause diseases that have no cure or effective treatment may lead to discrimination" (59%).

While over a third (36%) of the Australian population agreed that "the cloning of humans can not be stopped", another third of the population (34%) neither agreed or disagreed suggesting that they are unsure about this issue. While the level of certainty regarding that that "Mad Cow disease and Foot 'N Mouth occurred because of gene technology", is somewhat lower than what was expressed in the focus groups (11% of the Australian population agreed). The fact that the majority of respondents were either unsure (38% neither agreed or disagreed) or did not know (17%) is consistent with the general attitude of concern regarding this issue expressed in the focus groups. Also, the majority of Australian are unsure (47% neither agreed or disagreed) or did not know (19%) whether "there are no fresh fruit and vegetables produced in Australia using gene technology."

Why it is so important HOW you ask the questions:

AC Nielson undertook a poll for the SMH in July 2000 asked three questions:

would you buy GM foods? - with about 65% saying no.

would you buy GM medicines? - with about 58% saying no.

do you want GM foods labelled? - with about 90% saying yes.

Nothing new in the GM label response - but I was very interested in the food question and the medicines question. Firstly as the food question was asked to make a news story for the GM labelling decision - but was not asked in a labelling context and the medicine question as I believe it was unduly biased towards a negative finding by asking it after the food question - when consumers don't relate the two together. The finding was way out of proportion with any other finding of any other survey of this question I've ever seen - and effectively demonstrates how easily you can bias your findings by the way you ask a question.

Let me give you a simple example. Hands up who thinks I can't bias your answer to a very simple question? Well I'm going to ask four questions - and would like you to vocalise the answers -

what colour is snow?

what colour are teeth?

what colour are most refrigerators?

what do cows drink? (Now hands up who said milk?)

A key issue for consumer acceptance of a new technology was confidence in its regulation. So let's see what issues arise as far as regulation is concerned.

A key component of respondent concern regarding biotechnology at all phases of the research is the perception that there are no adequate controls over the process, motivations and outcomes of the development and application for biotechnology and gene technology in Australia.

The concern was that "nothing is being done to manage this", the rationale for this belief was simply, "we would know about it if they were doing anything."

To pass the test for consumer confidence any regulatory body must pass provide all these.

Regulatory Body

Enable Public Involvement

Provide Open Communication of Information

Be Informed By a Broad Range Of Industries and Independent Expert Knowledge

Commercial Financial & Political Independence

35 - Another key issue for any research body is how do you communicate what you're doing to the public and do they trust you?

But first, let me just show you how perceptions of media stories rated with actual media coverage, for the month of May, as rated by the media analysis company CARMA.

You can see there is quite a discrepancy in perception versus reality of media coverage - which is something you might need to be aware of.

39 - And we've actually seen awareness of media coverage of GM food drop in the media to the point that 40 per cent of people can't recall any mentions of it.

40 -

Television and newspapers remain popular sources of information (78% and 76%) respectively.

This is followed by radio (28%), science/academic magazines (20%) and the Internet (20%).

41 -

The Internet Seen As The Most Likely Source Of Information On Gene Technology.

However, the majority of respondents describe the Internet (53%) as where they would be most likely look for further information on biotechnology, this was followed by libraries (33%) and science and academic magazines (14%).

42 -

The CSIRO remains the most trusted source of information on gene technology (39%) this is a significant increase since 1999 (30%).

43 -

Consistent with the survey findings respondents typically sorted the sources of information into the following three groups of trustworthiness. Trust CSIRO, Schools & Universities

Distrust Federal Government, Political Parties, Religious Organisations, Media, Industry

Unsure Scientists, Internet Sites, Organisations, Biotechnology Australia, Office Of The Gene Technology Regulator, ANZFA

44 -

At all phases of the research the CSIRO was described as one of the most trustworthy sources of information on gene technology and biotechnology.

A familiar and well known organisation, the CSIRO was consistently praised for being trustworthy. The main reasons for this perception was:

Longevity, "the CSIRO has been there for years";

Financial and political independence;

Expert knowledge; and

For consistently providing reliable and balanced scientific research and information; "A center of scientific excellence".

Generally the trustworthiness of the Office of Gene Technology Regulator was seen in an uncertain light because respondents were not familiar with this organisation. Respondents perceived the term "regulator" to indicate an organisation entrusted with regulatory authority and therefore potentially trustworthy. Respondents were however, suspicious due to their lack of knowledge of:

who they represented;

who they were funded by; and

therefore whether the information they would issue would be biased. "Who are they working for?" (young non-tertiary educated male Sydney) "The word regulator makes you think they must know what they are talking about." (non-tertiary educated male, 30-49yrs Rockhampton)

All groups were highly distrustful of government and in particular the Federal Government as a source of information. This was because government at all levels was seen to be:

Motivated by short-term goals such as re-election and financial interests; and

Lack of scientific knowledge.

"No, they just want voters." (Young Tertiary-educated male Rockhampton)

"Its all for money." (Young non-educated male Sydney)

"Just look at the last election they don't say what they are going to do." (Non-tertiary educated 30-49yrs male Rockhampton)

Here's a tricky one - the media is the most common source of information for most people - but is not highly trusted. At all phases of the research commercial media was seen as an untrustworthy source of information because of their reputation to sensationalise and manipulate news. The ability of journalists who were seen to have limited scientific knowledge to actually comment on biotechnology was also questioned.

"Most journalists don't have the expertise to comment on anything if they're not coming form scientific journalism."(Tertiary-educated male 55+ Sydney)

"The media could be biased too, the tool of the majority, just obedient to the corporations." (Young Tertiary-educated male Rockhampton)

So - to summarise: For a new technology to be best accepted by the community - the community needs to be a part of the developmental process - not alienated from it. And we also know:

The public has new ways of assessing risk in new technologies, based on both outcomes and processes

People will have doubts about a new technology until they are alleviated

Confidence in regulation is a key issue towards gaining acceptance of a new technology

Benefits of a new technology must be actual and proven

Different sources of information have different levels of trust

The Future - moving forward with the community

What do the groups KNOW about the technology

What do the groups FEEL about the technology

Where do they get their information from?

What would they need to change their mind about it?

Who would need to tell them that?

© Craig Cormick 2002