SCIENCE AT THE SHINE DOME, 2004
President's Address
6 May 2004
Dr Jim Peacock FAA
President, Australian Academy of Science
As President of the Academy, I welcome you to the fiftieth anniversary and the formal ceremonies of the Australian Academy of Science.
The Australian Academy of Science received from Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth II, the Royal Charter in a ceremony at Yarralumla on 16 February 1954. Australia was then a very different place. In the past 50 years, science and technology have had a profound impact on the socio-economic well-being of all Australians, creating conditions and opportunities that may not have been envisaged by the founding fathers of this Academy. In those early days and in subsequent years, through the contributions of its Fellows, the Academy has played, and continues to play, a significant role in the scientific and everyday life of Australia. Last evening, at the launch of Eureka moments!, you saw some developments in health, technology and the environment, where Fellows of this Academy have made important and lasting contributions. I will reflect again today, against the backdrop of 1954, on some of the key scientific developments that have changed our lives forever. I will also reflect on the social contexts that have facilitated speedy uptake by the community of particular aspects of technological change, such as mobile phones, and the social contexts that have led to mistrust of other technologies, such as genetically modified food.
In the 19th century, developments such as electricity and railways were greeted with outrage in some quarters; in 1885 students at Yale University famously chopped down an electric light pole stating that they were 'getting more light than they relished'. In 1885, there were only a few hundred light posts in the United States, but some ten years later, there were millions. It is the nature of technological change that there is cautious uptake at the beginning by the adventurous few, with some in the community inevitably, and vocally, agitating against change.
In Australia, 50 years ago, the country, particularly Western Australia, was in the grip of an epidemic of poliomyelitis. The Sydney Morning Herald of 27 February of that year reported that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh had been inoculated in Canberra with gamma globulin, which increased resistance to polio, for about five weeks, but was not a certain safeguard. Gamma globulin is the component of human blood that contains antibodies. They received their injections from the first batch of gamma globulin ever produced in Australia. The remainder of the batch was used to inoculate eighteen nurses at the Canberra Community Hospital where a 21-year-old nurse had died of polio that week.
In accepting inoculation with the experimental gamma globulin, the young Queen and her consort had weighed up the risks and benefits of the new technology and concluded that the benefits of protection against polio out-weighed the risks. It involved courage on the part of the young Queen, to place her health in the hands of the colonial medical researchers! It was a calculated risk. Every new invention goes through a period of uncertainty when those of courage pioneer its use. It is calculated risk that permits change, and uptake of new technologies by the community. As scientists we have an obligation to assist policy-makers, and the community more generally, in making evidence-based deliberations on risks and benefits. I'll return to some of the actions the Academy is taking in this regard, and in educating the young in the method and logic of scientific thought.
Polio cases in Australia did not really begin to decline until the introduction of the inactivated Salk vaccine in 1956. Community acceptance of the Salk vaccine is interesting, because in 1955 two defective batches of polio vaccine were produced in California and resulted in about 250 polio cases. The tracking down of the defective batches and the introduction of quality assurance controls for vaccine production restored public confidence within months, if not weeks. The last known case of polio due to wild poliovirus in Australia was reported in 1972. Today, only six countries in the world have endemic polio and one of our Fellows, Sir Gus Nossal, working with WHO, looks forward to announcing before too long its world-wide eradication, just as Frank Fenner, on behalf of his colleagues, announced the world-wide eradication of smallpox.
In 2003, academic journalist Ian Hargreaves and his colleagues looked at media coverage and public understanding in Britain of the three-part measles, mumps, rubella vaccine, or MMR, and found that over half the British public were misled by the media into thinking that medical experts were evenly divided over whether the MMR was safe. This is interesting, because journalists are trained to give equal time to opposing views. This is clearly problematic in covering scientific issues if too much support is given to extreme minority views. In Australia, the scientific leaders in immunology, and quality media presenters such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Norman Swan, have spoken out strongly to allay community concerns about immunisation; they have constantly promoted confidence in sensible public health policy. It is not always appreciated that the near elimination of common infectious diseases in children has been an important contributor to increased freedom and opportunities for women to participate in the Australian workforce.
These days, many patients with genetic disorders can be helped by genetic engineering. Patients with hemophilia have access to unlimited amounts of pure human factor 8 or 9, through the application of genetic engineering techniques as pioneered in humans by the Academy's Secretary, Biological Sciences, John Shine, one of the pioneers in molecular genetics, who collaborated in the cloning of human insulin and growth hormone genes. In Australia, researchers had early approval to undertake experiments using recombinant DNA techniques through the actions of the Academy. In 1975 the Academy set up a committee known as ASCORD, which was recognised by government as an appropriate body to introduce regulation of rDNA research. Ultimately, a new body, the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Council, chaired by Nancy Millis, and more recently the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, ensured appropriate overview of Australian research in genetic engineering. The Australian community has embraced genetic engineering as it relates to cloning of human genes for therapeutic drug application. It has accepted genetically modified cotton as positive for the environment. The benefits are seen to outweigh the risks. But there are ongoing concerns about the way in which genetic engineering can improve health through changes in food or through direct gene therapy for genetic disorders.
Queen waving from car National Archives of Australia:
A1773, RV1080
(Click
on image for a larger version)
Prams waiting for royal motorcade National Archives
of Australia: A1773, RV970
(Click
on image for a larger version)
In February 1954, hundreds of thousands of Australians lined the streets to catch a glimpse of the Queen. This reflected the enthusiasm of loyal subjects but also reflected the fact that television had not yet been introduced to Australia. Developments in information and communications technology have been extraordinary, with computers, televisions and DVD players in every modern home. Electronic devices abound, with mobile phones used for previously unimagined purposes: to text-message at any time of day or night to friends on the other side of the world, to send provocative messages to enemies on the other side of the classroom, to send photographs to loved ones or to detonate fertiliser bombs. This is another example of rapid acceptance of new technology by young Australians. As early as May 2001, an Australian Bureau of Statistics survey said that 60 per cent of Australian households had a mobile phone and 52 per cent had a computer, third only to Sweden and the United States.
What was the state of agriculture in 1954? This was an area where the media took a strong stand and played an important part in public acceptance of the need for change. The Sydney Morning Herald correctly noted bovine tuberculosis as a menace; in some dairy herds the incidence of bovine tuberculosis ranged from 40-70 per cent. The economic loss was enormous. Bovine brucellosis was another major disease in Australia that reduced a herd's productivity and could be transmitted to humans. A national effort known as BTEC, the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication program, commenced in 1970. Development of technology that permitted reliable laboratory tests to identify diseased animals and computer capacity to maintain cattle records on a national level saw Australia free of these bovine diseases by 1992. This was an extraordinary effort by the cattle industry and by governments, but one that could not have been attained without science and technology, and courage in its implementation. In 1970, policy-makers were prepared to make courageous decisions, backed by the scientists, and risk rural voter backlash when herds were slaughtered, in favour of the long-term national good.
So where is that political will-power and courage today in capturing science and technology for the socioeconomic and environmental well-being of a future Australia? We have a Federal government that took a reasonable and forward-looking decision on stem-cell research, empowered in part by the position statements of the Academy, that called for a ban on cloning of humans, but supported the use of cloning techniques in stem cell research. Our objective and informed advice, whether sought by government or not, is needed in many quarters. Our Federal government has spoken and acted in support of genetic engineering in medicine and agriculture but five state governments have placed a moratorium on large-scale field trials of GMO canola. The Academy has offered, unsuccessfully, to help some state governments in rational assessment of the matter.
What is the social context in which communities assess the advantages of technological change? There is little or no penalty for policy-makers to say 'no' to a proposal, even when it deserves support. In contrast, it is seen that there is a major penalty if policy makers say 'yes' to a proposal that should have been blocked. This unsatisfactory, unbalanced situation will inevitably lead to a conservative and restrictive society. It takes courage to say 'yes' to a proposal when there is some element of uncertainty, but in the end, the seemingly safe decision of 'no' may do irreparable and lasting harm to the human condition.
The Academy has made, and continues to make, a special effort to develop a nationwide commitment to the children and youth of Australia, in science education. Early uptake of the idea that knowledge is based on evidence and that evidence is critical for sensible community decision-making is the outcome we strive to achieve.
As scientists, it is our professional responsibility to promote the public understanding of science. Public misunderstandings may lead to valuable technology being rejected, because public attitudes influence the statutory framework in which we operate. Public misunderstanding may also lead to misuse of technology, as in patient demand for antibiotics to treat viral diseases.
At the end of the day, the place where public acceptance is given expression is the Parliament. Public attitudes towards science and technology ultimately impact public funding of research. The Academy, through its Fellows and, in recent times, by drawing on the talents of our younger colleagues, has a proud record of engaging the community in debate and of providing sound and instructive advice to government.
The understanding and application of science are fundamental to the prosperity of modern nations. It is incumbent on us all, as a professional responsibility of working scientists, to promote the public awareness of science.
