The Council of the Australian Academy of Science supports the establishment of a robust and fair national process for assuring the integrity of Australian research funded or subsidised by any public source, wherever conducted.

The Academy proposes enhancements to the current system: 

1. A two-tiered system where there is (a) national oversight of major breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (the Code) and (b) institutional oversight of minor breaches with all publicly funded research being covered by the Code and an oversight system wherever it is conducted. The oversight body should have the capacity to conduct or commission research on matters related to the oversight of misconduct.
2. A national oversight body is empowered to collect data and publish reports that can act to showcase good research ethics and practices and respects the diversity of organisations – universities, medical research institutes, government departments and agencies, business – and multi-jurisdictional legislative frameworks, obligations and cultures.
3. A national oversight body also be responsible for overseeing institutional management of serious breaches of good research practices in the form of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism that are committed intentionally or with gross negligence in the planning, performing, or reporting of research outcomes. Potentially serious matters will be reported to the national oversight body, either by the complainant or the relevant organisation, and the evidence supporting the allegation will be evaluated. If this triage shows there is cause to investigate, the case cannot be dismissed and the institution would be obliged to investigate it.
4. The national oversight body will be tasked with overseeing the conduct of investigation of serious breaches by institutions to provide public confidence that such matters are being conducted properly. Organisations conducting the research will still be responsible for conducting and resourcing investigations. 

The Council of the Australian Academy of Science supports the recognition of  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution.

The Council recognises that this continent was falsely declared terra nullius, or nobody’s land, to legitimise British settlement, and this was corrected only in 1992 when the High Court of Australia recognised the continuous connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to the land.

The Council observes that the adoption of terra nullius was profoundly detrimental to generations of Indigenous peoples.

The Council, therefore, supports the establishment in the Constitution of a Voice to Parliament and to Executive Government – enshrined to provide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with an enduring means to influence policies that specifically relate to them and is safe from political whim.

The Council will work with our Fellows and the science community to promote and facilitate evidence-informed conversation on the Voice and Traditional Knowledges.

This statement was approved by the Academy’s Council on 22 June 2023.

Summary of position

The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is a region of enormous natural beauty and scientific interest. However, the Great Barrier Reef is currently in poor condition and requires scientific and policy support.

Statement of principle

All efforts to maintain and preserve the Great Barrier Reef should be based on the best scientific evidence, with the goal of ensuring the Reef’s survival and securing its future.

Statement of context

Recent back to back coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef represent a serious deterioration in the condition of the Reef. These bleaching events are linked directly to record-breaking warmer sea surface temperatures.

The Academy’s position

The long-term goal of Great Barrier Reef management, expressed in the 2050 Reef Sustainability Plan,¹ is to improve the Outstanding Universal Value of the Reef every decade between now and 2050. The Academy considers this vision may no longer be possible given the mortality of half of the shallow-water corals in the central and northern Great Barrier Reef. The Academy is concerned the Great Barrier Reef may no longer be able to return to its condition of 1981, when it was inscribed as a World Heritage Area.² The goal therefore should be to sustain a functioning Reef into the future, recognising that the Great Barrier Reef in a warmer world will likely be different from the recent past.³

Climate change, poor water quality, and their interactions are key issues for the Great Barrier Reef. During its 41st session the World Heritage Committee adopted a decision to: 

“strongly invite all State Parties… to address Climate Change under the Paris Agreement at their earliest possible opportunity…..consistent with their obligations within the World Heritage Convention to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of all World Heritage properties”. ⁴ 

The Academy notes this is the first time the World Heritage Committee has explicitly linked stewardship of World Heritage Areas with nations’ policies for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Academy also notes with concern the World Heritage Committee’s 2017 assessment of Australia’s progress on implementing the 2050 Plan, concluded that: 

“progress towards achieving water quality targets has been slow, and the most immediate water quality targets set out in the 2050 Plan are not expected to be achieved within the foreseeable future”.

In order to address these concerns, responsible agencies, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Federal Department of the Environment and Energy, and the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection need to implement policies that directly mitigate threats to the Great Barrier Reef and prevent further damage from occurring. Pressures and impacts on the Reef should be monitored at all spatial and time scales, so that progress in curbing them can be assessed. The relevant authorities should work closely with the scientific community to ensure policy development, implementation and review harnesses contemporary thinking and existing knowledge regarding the effective management of the Reef.

Statement of authorisation

This position paper was subject to expert review by the Australian Academy of Science and authorised by the Academy Council at its meeting of 11 October 2018.

1. The Reef 2050 Plan. http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/long-term-sustainability-plan (Accessed November 2017)
2. Reef 2050 Plan, Independent Expert Panel – Communiqué 5 May 2017. http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/abff0d5e-b94d-4495-b79b-90dc52274f69/files/expert-panel-communique-5may2017.pdf (Accessed November 2017)
3. See: Hughes, TP, JT Kerry, M Álvarez-Noriega, JG Álvarez-Romero, KD Anderson, AH Baird, RC Babcock, et al. 2017. "Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals." Nature 543 (7645): 373-377. doi:10.1038/nature21707; Hoegh-Golberg, Ove. 2012. "The adaptation of coral reefs to climate change: Is the Red Queen being outpaced?" Scientia Marina. doi:10.3989/scimar.03660.29A.
4. World Heritage Committee. 2017. "Decision: 41 COM 7, Climate Change." State of Conservation of the Properties Inscribed on the World Heritage List. Krakow: UN. http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6940.

Other relevant links

Summary of position

The Australian Academy of Science supports the responsible and ethical use of biotechnology, including gene technologies, to produce genetically modified plants and animals for use in Australian agriculture and medicine.

The Academy supports a regulatory scheme for gene technology that is proportional to the risk being managed, and which provides benefits that outweigh the costs of regulation.

Statement of principle

Australian science has a key role to assist in global food security and health. Gene technology can play a role in the alleviation of malnutrition, enhancing agricultural sustainability and food security worldwide.

The regulatory environment for gene technology must be proportionate with its risks. The lack of full certainty in an environment of manageable risk should not be used as the reason to postpone measures where genetic modification can legitimately be used to address environmental or public health issues.

Statement of context

Gene technology is regulated in Australia by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, under the Gene Technology Act 2000. Genetically modified foods are also regulated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Such foods require mandatory pre-market approval (including a food safety assessment) and are subject to mandatory labelling requirements.

The Academy’s position

Background

Gene technology is the process of introducing or modifying the genetic material of an organism in order to introduce new genetic traits, suppress existing ones or otherwise affect the expression of genes. It is conceptually similar to traditional selective breeding techniques, but involves a technological intervention to modify the organism’s genome directly rather than selecting for preferred traits in breeding. The term may include the introduction of new genes, modification of existing genes, or altering the expression of genes by, for example, modifying the interaction of the gene with cellular machinery.

Position

Gene technology is integral to biotechnology and an important tool in modern biology. Australia has a strong position in global bioscience and is a significant contributor to advances in gene technology. The technology is being harnessed to gain fundamental insights into the molecular basis of life and has enabled the production of GM cotton and canola, the first broadacre GM crops to be released commercially in Australia. Coupled with existing breeding and production systems, gene technology and scientific innovation can deliver improved financial and environmental outcomes for the agricultural sector.

Recent advances in genetic technologies have greatly increased the range of options available to breeders. Of particular note is the CRISPR/Cas9 system, which allows precise, targeted changes to the genome of living cells, many of which will indistinguishable from changes brought about using conventional methods but will be obtained with greater precision and in a more timely manner. The Academy strongly supports transparency, scrutiny and safety of genetic research. The outcomes of these new applications should be scientifically evaluated with respect to public safety and environmental impacts well in advance any public release.

Regulation

The Australian regulatory framework for gene technology was established at a time when the technology was new, the risks were poorly defined, and there were few commercial products. Consequently, the focus was on ensuring the safety of new work in research facilities and tightly controlled small scale trials. However, the field is now significantly more developed and it is possible to state with much greater accuracy the level of risk posed by different applications of gene technology.

There is therefore a need to implement a responsive and efficient regulatory framework that can address changes in gene technology as they occur, and which applies a level of regulation commensurate with the actual rather than perceived risks. Present regulatory structures can be unduly onerous, and present a large barrier to commercialising new gene modification applications.

The Academy takes the position that there are efficiencies to be gained in the legislative and regulatory framework by developing an exemption model for organisms with genetic modifications indistinguishable from those produced by non-genetic modification techniques, and by streamlining risk assessment processes for low-risk procedures or well-studied organisms.

The Academy also recommends a regulatory scheme that is able to adapt to new technological developments, through clear definitions that focus on research outcomes rather than the technology used to achieve them.

Gene drives

Synthetic gene drives have the potential to solve intractable problems in public health, environmental conservation and agriculture, they may also have the potential to cause negative environmental and human health effects. Gene drives are designed to spread genetic constructs rapidly throughout a population, and thus may produce genetic and ecological changes in target and non-target species. Accordingly, the Academy takes the view regulation of gene drives requires special consideration, as it is difficult to predict the outcomes of deployment at this early stage of research and development.

Initial gene drive development will mostly involve laboratory-contained research and development projects. The appropriate level of containment will depend on the organism involved and the potential for the gene drive system being developed to spread and persist in the environment. For example, drives with a slow rate of propagation have different containment implications compared to drives that might rapidly spread from a low initial frequency.

Statement of authorisation

This position paper was subject to expert review by the Australian Academy of Science and authorised by the Academy Council at its meeting of 11 October 2018.

Relevant recent submissions

• Joint submission – Review of the National Gene Technology Scheme (Phase 3), May 2018
• Joint submission – FSANZ consultation on new breeding techniques, April 2018
• Joint submission – Review of the National Gene Technology Scheme (Phase 2), December 2017
• Joint submission – Review of the National Gene Technology Scheme 2017, September 2017
• Submission – Proposal for food derived from Provitamin A rice, September 2017
• Joint submission – Gene technology regulation, December 2016

Other relevant links

Summary of position

The Australian space industry should be promoted through:

• greater collaboration between industry, government and academia to grow space-related products and services
• integration of existing capabilities through global supply chains
• a support framework for space start-ups
• building on research and technology strengths and collaborations
• enhancing emerging capabilities.

Statement of principle

Australia has a number of natural advantages in space science and technology, including our physical location in the southern hemisphere, a strong platform for research training, significant technical expertise, and strong international partnerships.

At the same time, Australian is also highly dependent on international space infrastructure and technology for purposes including defence, communications, satellite imagery and positioning technology.

These dependencies require Australia to take a strategic approach to space science and technology in a way that capitalises on our strengths advantage while ensuring secure and, where necessary, sovereign capabilities. A mature space industry supported by a robust policy and program framework will allow Australia to address dependencies by developing internationally competitive technologies in our own right.

Statement of context

Space technology is an integral part of Australian life that supports much of our economy and society.

In September 2017 the Australian Academy of Science’s National Committee for Space and Radio Science released A vision for space science and technology in Australia, a strategic assessment of Australian space sciences. Chief among this report’s recommendations was the establishment of a national framework to coordinate Australian space activities, in order to support the Australian space sector to innovate and mature.

In 2017, the Australian Government appointed former CEO of CSIRO Dr Megan Clarke AC to undertake a review of Australia’s space industry capability, and responded to this review in the 2018-19 Federal Budget with the establishment of an Australian Space Agency.

The Academy’s position

Australia has a strong research capability in space science, supported by several landmark infrastructure facilities provided under the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. These includes infrastructure supporting astronomy, marine observation, geoscience and positioning, national computational infrastructure.

With a policy framework to encourage coordination and collaboration across the sector and facilitate strategic relationships between government, industry and research providers, Australia can capitalise on its scientific strengths and other advantages to create an innovative and robust space industry.

Australia has established capabilities in:

• telemetry, tracking and command for satellite operations, ground station networks and infrastructure supporting deep space exploration and astronomy
• space applications – agriculture, mining, logistics, aviation and communications depend on space derived services for communication, imagery and positioning
• satellite communications, communication systems and research into photonics, quantum cryptography, optical design and adaptive optics
• integration of space derived imagery into many applications including weather forecasting, vegetation and land use monitoring, national security, emergency services and surveying and mapping
• management and publishing of data derived from space through Government agencies
• training and expertise in space sciences and engineering.

Australia has emerging capabilities in:

• design and manufacture of nano- and micro-satellites in universities and emerging start-up companies
• manufacturing of satellite subsystems, including high performance optics, radio communications systems, optical communications systems and on-board data handling
• manoeuvring and managing space debris through the work of the Space Environment Research Centre at Mt. Stromlo.

Many major domestic programs are expanding their requirements for space science. These include national defence, Australia’s engagement in space situational awareness, global navigation satellite systems and Earth observation, and space weather prediction and mitigation within the Bureau of Meteorology. At the same time, miniaturised electronics and hardware, such as the CubeSat platform, have significantly reduced entry barriers to space. These conditions, coupled with the presence of our established and emerging capabilities, provide a strong base from which to develop a robust and productive space industry.

Australia should provide support for these established and emerging capabilities, particularly at the level of space industry start-ups and small- and medium-enterprises which capitalise on high level technical expertise to supply products and services to large global missions. In doing so, it will be crucial to provide an environment that favours coordination and collaboration across the sector, enables long-term planning and substantial investment in R&D by the space industry, and facilitates enduring relationships between government, industry and research providers.

The space industry is global, and the Australian space industry should take every opportunity to access international markets. An expanded role in the global space industry will generate strategic advantages for Australia, and leadership will depend on scientific capability and industrial capacity and engagement. The national space agency, announced in the 2018 Budget, will allow Australian institutions and enterprises to be represented in international forums. This will allow better access to international markets and ensure that the Australian space industry is integrated into the global marketplace.

The Academy supports a vigorous and well-supported space industry, sustained by a strong space research sector.

Statement of authorisation

This position paper was subject to expert review by the Australian Academy of Science and authorised by the Academy Council at its meeting of 11 October 2018.

Other relevant links