Historically, scientific advancements and discoveries bring about social change and the social and political climate in turn influences the kind of science being done. More specifically, in modern times the most direct influence of science on society is through policy making. When an issue is rooted in or can be solved by science, policymakers reach out to members of the scientific community for advice. Often, the research done by scientists can be wilfully or accidentally misinterpreted by the policymakers and/or the broader community and have an impact on the political landscape. If uninformed people hear statistics or claims of ‘science’ that is pseudoscience (especially if the research is ordered by a member of parliament) it can taint the public’s view on that matter, even if the reported science is untrue. The political and social environment affects what kind of research is done whether that is through funding availability or direct requests from government members. This can sometimes lead to confirmation bias where the goal of the research is predetermined, and data is modified to get the desired outcome. Science journalists and ministers must be careful in the way they report on science and scientists must engage and advocate for the importance of their field in the community and act scientifically.
Having the skills and time required to become involved in parliament while also having a background in science appears to be either difficult or discouraged as, in the current Australian government, only a handful of ministers have a STEM background. Having a diverse team of ministers with different backgrounds allows for more representative and knowledgeable policy-making. No one person can be an expert in every field, however, which is where the scientific community can be engaged. There is a dilemma in science engagement with the public in which the facts must be conveyed in a way that is easily understood but not oversimplified and the benefits and risks associated must be communicated effectively. Policy making is a difficult process as benefits to the broader community must outweigh the potential risks, but this involves more than just the science. A good government will want the best for the people they are representing but conflicts of interest with a party’s main principles or stakeholders can lead to them ignoring or changing the scientific facts to suit their agenda. It may also be more complicated, involving many social and political issues, for example, the climate change debate. Many issues have been raised with the suggestion of closing coal mines, with people concerned about unemployment and the economy. There are viable solutions to these problems, however, due to the government's involvement with the coal industry and the revenue it raises, there is a reluctance to act upon it. Despite more than 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human activities have contributed to climate warming, the debate is still centered on whether climate change is real, rather than what should be done about it (Cook et al., 2013). Climate change is now far more political than scientific and is a complicated social issue. Due to social media campaigns and other social movements, some areas of science receive more funding and resources than others. Funding is very competitive and often awarded due to perceived benefit (both financial and to human life) and this can disadvantage some fields. On another note, sometimes science can give solutions to impractical problems, and ministers must choose how to take the issue further.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The moratorium is the temporary suspension of the use of genetic modification (GM) practices in cultivating products in the food and non-food industries in Tasmania. There has been a review of the moratorium every five years since 2004 with the review focussing solely on the marketing impact of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in Tasmania. The review does not involve a discussion of the environmental or health impacts as this is under the jurisdiction of the Gene Technology Scheme. This method of review has been criticized as the evidence supporting findings is largely speculative and does not consider the environmental effects specific to Tasmania. GM products and methods are overall misunderstood by the general population, so removing the scientific aspect of the debate from the community level could be a positive thing, but at the same time, it is important to involve the community and educate them on the scientific benefits and risks of GMOs. As commercial genetic modification is a relatively new concept, research is ongoing to determine any long-term health risks in humans, including increased cancer and allergy risks, and antibiotic resistance. Some meaningful benefits to farmers include the changing characteristics of plants (for example, taste, nutrition, disease resistance, etc.) which makes production cheaper (Barrell, 2019).
Tasmania is a unique state because of its climate and isolation as a small island. Due to its size and location, large-scale exports are less practical and so the export market focuses on small-scale, quality products. This makes its position in the GMO debate an interesting one as it is difficult to compare the effect of a GMO moratorium with that in other states and territories. Tasmania is promoted as a ‘clean and green’ state concerning its cool climate, strong biosecurity, and quality food production (Review of Tasmania’s Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Moratorium - Final Report, 2019). Along with this image comes the ‘GMO-free’ label which some claim to be integral to the marketing of the Tasmanian brand. Being an island state, there is the capacity to produce goods that are completely free from GMO contamination through a state-wide ban in the form of a moratorium and strong biosecurity at borders and imports. Considering that the state exported $740 million of food products interstate and overseas in 2018 (three-quarters of the total food and beverage produced), the impact of GMOs on Tasmania’s food industry cannot be taken lightly. China, Japan, and South Korea contributed to 47% of Tasmania’s total food export value in 2018. From surveys to certain markets (especially Japanese consumers), the perception of a ‘clean and green’ image of Tasmania is more important than the actual scientific impact of GM products and so maintaining this image is vital to Tasmania’s economy. For Australian consumers, it is often assumed a product will be non-GMO so there is no reason to promote it as such, and GMO-specific marketing is rare. In America however, GM products are more prevalent and so the ‘GMO-free’ label sets products apart from competitors. The assurance of GMO-free products to these consumers is then meaningful and Tasmanian goods producers could lose these clients if the moratorium were altered or ended. The public is largely uninformed about GM products and their risks, but due to their bad image, most people are wary of them. This is a problem for the Tasmanian poppy farming industry, as although they are exempt from the moratorium, the benefits of the production of GM poppies are debated. To the uninformed public, GMOs might be dangerous and so question the safety of GMOs in pharmaceuticals.
To the Tasmanian economy, the GMO debate does not have a simple solution. For some industries such as poppy farming and canola oil manufacturing, genetic modification could potentially increase the scale of their production and allow them to be nationwide or even global competitors, but for other industries such as beef and salmon (which are two of the biggest food industries in Tasmania), they could be detrimental to their overseas reach. The question of whether GMO and non-GMO crops could coexist in Tasmania is also a point of contention. As the review does not involve any scientific review of GMOs, this is again considered only from a marketing perspective. If the moratorium were ended and GMO crops were introduced, the non-GMO businesses would have to independently promote their product as such, and there is a possibility of contamination (the risk of which would be investigated by the Gene Technology Scheme). Recently, the Scheme declared that the gene modifying technique known as SDN-1 was not going to be regulated as a GMO and therefore will not fall under the moratorium. This could cause problems for businesses that rely on their GMO-free status for marketing purposes.
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association indicated in their submission to the review that the department had not capitalized on the ‘GMO-free’ status of the state including further development of the Tasmanian brand. Many other submissions critiqued the overstated and unproven benefits of the moratorium, which has little quantitative evidence. Simple comparisons between the effect on the Tasmanian export economy with and without moratoria are problematic. There is no way to easily determine the effect of the Tasmanian GMO moratorium on interstate and overseas exports as the GMO environment is constantly evolving, and consumer behavior is difficult to predict. The review of moratoria in Australia is based on community and industry testimonials, most without substantial evidence of the impact on marketing. Even if sales have improved, there is no way to determine if this is due to the GMO moratorium or some other factor.
Stuck on your essay?
