Public reasoning across Australia for different genetic technology applications

As biotechnology advances, so too do debates about its place in society. Advanced genetic technologies are often hailed as the key to transforming sectors from agriculture to energy. But how do Australians see it?

A recent national study conducted between CSIRO and ANU, led by Dr Henry Dixson, has brought together members of the public across each state and territory. Instead of quantifying support, the research published in Public Understanding of Science analysed how Australians reasoned through initial reactions to see where they land.

Across the country, people were unfamiliar with the term ‘synthetic biology’. They were excited by the possibilities, but haunted by historic reckoning, technology misuse and potential impacts on future generations. Each participant was asked to send a message to an imagined group responsible for agenda setting. Their responses fell into 2 areas: institutions need better trust-building, and the value of purpose. Good science, in their eyes, is explicitly purpose-driven, not just technically innovative. There was a clear call for transparency of intent, investment, and tracking the benefits.

But the field of advanced engineering biology is highly abstract. People still need specific products and tools to help them consider it. Participants in the study were asked to pretend they had the power to ‘roll out’ or withhold one of 4 technologies. Crucially, they had to justify why.

These 4 technologies were:

Synthetic milk

Made by inserting cow DNA into yeast. Participants noted the environmental benefits while some were uncomfortable with the use of DNA, advocating alternatives.

Colour-gene edited cotton

Grown in different hues. Described as less risky and more comfortable on the one hand but linked to our tendency toward wasteful consumerism on the other.

Plastic-eating enzymes

Designed to break down plastic at the molecular level. Received support for immediate action, while concerns persisted about the loss of containment and its contribution to plastic consumption.

Gene drive rabbits

Altered to produce only male offspring. A polarising application seen as a powerful improvement on poison or rampant invasive species, with deep concerns around unpredictability and permanent alterations of nature.

The research identified two stories that Australians tell—one cautious, the other hopeful:

Story 1) Tragic Flaws

History teaches us—through thalidomide, nuclear weapons, and invasive species—that our talents mix with incentives and limited foresight. In a larger world that competes for control, tools are coopted for power and markets. Changing DNA across sectors adds a new level of uncertainty to this, because it shapes entire natural systems. We must have a right to say no, especially when it comes to consuming or releasing something.

Story 2) Practical Wisdom

Many problems, like energy crises and pollution, are more than our past mistakes; they represent forgetting the future. This science is an advance back to cleaner, flourishing lives, via breakthroughs in different sectors. We’ve got to future-proof: reduce the harm of current practices, discover cures and solve major crises. These deeply impressive tools will create ripple effects across generations.

Untapped Talent

The study challenges the idea that public ethical concerns are irrelevant for meaningful debate and policy. Instead, Australians wrestle with intentions and priorities and want triage regarding uses. People have often described genetic engineering as ‘messing with nature’, which is regarded as a frustrating trope. However, this does a lot more than signal ignorance; it escalates the stakes. Moral counters to novel science and technology can be harnessed to push people to justify why they think this way. Why we must, or mustn’t, go ahead. Why now? Who benefits? Who pays? The findings suggest public engagement about advanced engineering biology will benefit from cutting through the binary of ‘for or against’. Rather than persuading Australians to abandon any fear and ‘accept’ the science, we can learn how public caution is a tool grounded in their world. This will enable new ways to design, communicate and introduce innovations.

The study was funded by the CSIRO-ANU Collaboration Responsible Innovation, and published in Public Understanding of Science. Read the full paper at https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251333316