HIGH FLYERS THINK TANK

Biotechnology and the future of Australian agriculture

The Shine Dome, Canberra, 26 July 2005

Summing up
Chair: Dr Jim Peacock

I think the politicians, Commonwealth and state, are going to sit up and take notice of this report, because they don't often get to hear what a lot of the active young scientists of Australia have to say about areas like this. We, as an Academy, take on the responsibility of making sure these reports get out and get discussed, and we have found, as we have taken their content round to the key heads of departments and to Ministers, that they have always done their homework before we actually see them. They have been through the reports and been advised about them.

One thing that came up today was language. It is important. Really, what we have been talking about is modern biology. I can remember when, in research, we used the terms 'biotechnology' or 'molecular biology' or 'genetic engineering' as prime levers to get funding. But in fact it is modern biology. What we have been discussing under the term 'biotechnology' permeates every discipline of biological research today and transgenic organisms are just one part, though an important part, of a matrix.

Sometimes it may be that the transgenic organism will be the desired way forward, but there are plenty of other ways in which the new technologies are making a difference to our understanding of how plants, animals, humans function in their environments, how they respond to stresses, and what is the basis of their patterns of development. It is clear that biotechnology, directly or indirectly, can help our medicine, our agriculture and indeed, as we have heard, perhaps many other industries.

So how do you get around the concerns surrounding this area? I think the regulatory bodies have already decided. Particularly here in Australia: they have to consider these things case by case. You can't talk about whether 'GM crops' are going to be acceptable; you need to look at the individual situation, what is proposed, how the changes are being made to any individual crop. What has been done, and why is it being done? Are there any specially perceived hazards in the particular case? Have the right tests been done? Are the benefits overwhelming, relative to any of the perceived risks? It must be looked at case by case. This needs to be remembered when we talk about situations that we might generally classify as biotechnology.

I have found if I talk to public groups about an example that they can relate to in their lives, then they finish up with much more understanding than they otherwise would have had. They better appreciate the opportunities that these new developments can bring.

Another common point brought out today in the discussions is the need to focus. We have to focus on our science – there have been many suggestions of more collaboration in Australian science, of looking for things that are clearly important for our future, that have great potential. The focus in the science has to be matched, though, with the focus on, 'Well, what opportunity does this area of research present? What is the business system that we are hoping to address?' And these things need to be worked out ahead of time, and then modified along the way as we gain new knowledge.

The other important focus is on communication. Perhaps this is the most important thing of all. Yesterday I talked to representative leaders of most of the agricultural industries of Australia. They had very little understanding at all of what the various technologies were, or even of what were the considerations, yet these are the leaders of our agribusiness systems in these different crops. The extent of the need for effective communication is really hard to appreciate. That is why I am always impressed by the enormously important and good job that is done by Craig Cormick and his people from Biotechnology Australia.

The communication has to be at all levels. I was head of a CSIRO division, and I remember that several years ago, when I was pushing for more of the sort of science we have been talking about today – biotechnology and molecular biology – the plant breeders of our organisation used to set up machine gun emplacements up the hill, and whenever I appeared they'd fire at me, and they dealt with any other biotechnologist who happened to stick their head out as a target! But then, as the understanding came and the more classical plant breeders could work together with the 'DNA jockeys', it turned out to be extraordinarily synergistic and useful.

So we need communication to scientists, to the public, and especially to decision-makers. As you know, that means politicians. The way in which FASTS and this Academy organise the 'Science Meets Parliament Day' in Canberra is very important. But you need to be communicating with politicians, in your home areas, all the time. The only way that they are going to be effective in considering the possibility of scientific matters is by having a good understanding of them.

You must realise that if you are a politician or any other decision-maker, it is easier to say no. It takes courage to say yes to something that is relatively new. Very often, the 'No' will be said as it has been in these moratoria to canola. And that 'No' may ultimately lead to enormous negative consequences for our business systems, for our community and for our participation in the world. So, to maximise the opportunity for 'Yes', if that is what you really believe in, you have to make sure that that politician is really understanding what you are talking about, and what the balances are. Today you have made specific suggestions that are new and will be very useful for other people to think about.

Last week I was in Spain, which is growing GM hybrid maize. It was impressive to see and make comparisons with the ratty ordinary crops that were around. The farmers don't want to grow anything other than the GM crop because it's so superior in performance. The kernels from that maize in Spain go straight into animal feed systems. That GM feed is going into chooks, pigs, cows, goats, and other animals which get feed from crop plants. There is enormous sensitivity about GM crops in other parts of Europe, but the Spanish had the vision and the courage to say, 'If we're going to start to bring the agribusiness system of Spain around, this is something that we see we must have.' It was very impressive.

When you look at our GM crop, cotton, do you think that we could really suggest we should stop it now? I have thought about this quite a lot. You can see the actual benefits that this has had for the environment – 86 per cent less in insecticides, $200 million less in chemical being sprayed around the countryside in cotton country, better yields, better profits, better lifestyle for the farmer and the farm workers, better human health when the farm workers are not exposed to the chemicals, better management of the fields in the control of weeds, and a hugely beneficial plus for the communities of these regions.

I think it is not that it happens to be GM cotton; it is just better cotton – it is a better agricultural crop. And I can't see that any politician in Australia would be able to carry the day in saying no. For our other crops, we would just have to be certain – as we were, I think, for cotton – that with each particular case there was a real opportunity which would benefit the farmer, the local community, the nation and the environment.

So that is what we have to look at for the current crop that has been excluded by the state governments, canola. We need to ask ourselves, 'Is it fair that our canola growers are using canola that has 16 to 20 per cent less yield potential than the corresponding farmer is using in Canada? Is that fair? Is that what they really want? Are there any negative consequences?' We thought, 'Well, there might be gene transfer to the radish weeds.' The CRC in Adelaide did some wonderful research to demonstrate the extraordinarily low probability of gene transfer, and put a convincing case that this was not a hazard in Australia. Again this emphasises the need to examine these things case by case.

We are not suddenly, after today, going to switch to a totally transgenic cropping system in Australia, or to transgenic animals. But I think you will have made a contribution to thought about how we can sensibly move to make sure we integrate these developments of modern biology into our agribusiness systems. And, as I said, we will do our best to make sure your thoughts and contributions get around.