2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act
QIMR submission on the independent review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 by the Gene Technology Ministerial Council
Public perception versus scientific endeavour
While scientists accept the perception that GMOs may be dangerous if released into the environment, the public need to also be made aware of their role as a part of biological research and be shown that in appropriately made facilities there is little change of any negative impacts of the work.
Much of this work is contained and classified as low risk both to persons and the environment.
The regulatory burden
The Gene Technology Act impacts on research because it imposes a regulatory burden which is greater than many overseas competitor countries. Within Australia other regulatory authorities also impact. The main ones being the Workplace Health and Safety Legislations, soon to be harmonized and the AQIS Regulations for certified facilities. For organisations dealing with contained facilities the inconsistencies between OGTR and AQIS certification requirements causes problems of compliance and harmonization of these regulatory bodies would be highly beneficial to research.
Time costs
There is a cost in time commitment although at present there is no charge for a licence or a certification under the Act.
For organisations conducting dealings with GMOs, scientists must obtain an approval for low level dealings through their Institutional Safety Committee (IBC) if the work is deemed a low risk or a licence through the OGTR if it is a high risk. Writing such applications takes time and for licenced dealings this can be quite a detailed time consuming application.
For an IBC to work, a number of scientists from the breadth of research fields of the organisation must sit on the committee reading and assessing applications put forward by their fellow scientists. In larger organisations this can be a commitment of 2-3 days a month, 10-11 months a year. All time which is taken away from their research effort. This is often a larger time commitment than sitting on an NHMRC grant review panel which only happens once a year.
While scientists accept there needs to be control over high risk dealings, the speed at which approvals occur is limiting. For a high risk dealing still to be conducted in a laboratory setting, the application must go to the IBC and then to the OGTR for final approval. These applications take 6 months in practice (90 working days) for an approval, as does any amendment (change in experimental procedure, new animal/bacterial species). For dealings involving release these times frames are much longer.
This is a delay in research and slows Australian productivity relative to other parts of the world in which Australian Scientists compete to be the first to publish and to obtain external grant funding.
Costs of facilities
An organisation must also certify its facilities at either PC1, PC2 or PC3 for general organisations (few none government organisations will have PC4 facilities). This means that on an annual basis the members of the IBC or their delegates must undertake check list audits to ensure the facilities meet the certification guidelines set out by OGTR.
If guidelines change there can be increased non budgeted costs on an organisation to upgrade its facilities or in some cases build new facilities in order to comply with new requirements if the research work is to continue.
The OGTR inspectors also check PC3 facilities once each 3 years as their certification is renewed and usually one other time within the 3 year certification period. At these times the facilities must be shut down and work cease while inspection takes place (some mid-term audits can be undertaken without access, but not re-certification ones). As facilities have to be decontaminated prior to inspection this can be a week of down time when the facility is unavailable and no research can be conducted.
Evidence based regulatory changes
Each time the Act or Regulations are reviewed there appears to be a tightening of the requirments. For instance, this year there has been a change in the transport/storage and disposal requirements for GMOs, requiring more stringent paperwork and containment for transport.
There is little or no evidence given to suggest such a tightening is required. Those who act within the Regulatory framework imposed by the OGTR Act do so in a highly compliant manner and there a few if any accidents of contained dealings. Those organisations who choose not to comply are not impacted by any regulatory changes unless identified by the authorities where penalties can then be imposed. However the OGTR accept there have been no prosecutions for low risk dealing breaches.
There needs to be an acknowledgement that contained dealings that are low risk are unlikely to escape from a PC2 facility either by infecting the personnel working there or by accidently release to the environment. The regulatory impact for these dealings is severe given they pose.
Impact statements
As part of any review of the Act or Regulations there should be an impact statement of what it costs to the Research community and thus to Australia and what would be the cost (perceived risk and its impact) if no change occurred.
June 14th 2011
On behalf of QIMR
Dr J Helen Leonard | Safety Committee Chair
Safety Manager
Queensland Institute of Medical Research
Original submission in PDF format (PDF 191 KB)
In this section
- Occasional papers series
- Plasma Fractionation Review
- Regulatory Plan 2007-08
- Regulatory Plan 2008-09
- Regulatory Plan 2006-07
- Department of Health Reconciliation Action Plan
- PHERP Review Reports
- Margaret River Consumer for GM Free Food Submission to the review Gene Technology Act 2000
- 2002 Reviews of the National HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C Strategies and Strategic Research
- 2006 Aged Care Homes Survey
- 2006 – 2007 Jurisdictional Summary Report against the National Strategic Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health (NSFATSIH)
- A National Aboriginal Health Strategy: An Evaluation 1994
- An analysis of research on preventing falls and falls injury in older people: Community, residential care and hospital settings (2004 update)
- Anorexia nervosa: Australian treatment guide for consumers and carers, 2005
- Building on success 1: a review of gay and other homosexually active men's HIV/AIDS education in Australia
- Building on success 2: towards a national strategy for HIV/AIDS health promotion for gay and other homosexually active men
- Building on success 3: the Commonwealth Government response to towards national strategy for HIV/AIDS health promotion for gay and other homosexually active men
- COAG mental health early intervention measure - early childhood component: study to scope potential service delivery
- Coping with depression: Australian treatment guide for consumers and carers, 2005
- Council Of Grain Grower Organisations submission to the Gene Technology Act 2000 Review
- Deakin University submission to the Gene Technology Act 2000 review
- Deep vein thrombosis and air travel
- Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) - Medicare Australia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
- Discussion Document Towards a Fourth National HIV/AIDS Strategy April 1999
- Drug and Alcohol Service Report (DASR): 2006-2007 Key Results
- Drug and Alcohol Service Report (DASR): 2007-2008 Key Results
- Evidence of effective interventions to improve the social and environmental factors impacting on health: Informing the development of Indigenous Community Agreements
- Falls prevention activities for older people: a national stocktake
- Gene technology Act 2000 review from Guy Izzett
- gettin em n keepin em
- Government response to the House of Representatives Inquiry into Indigenous health: 'Health is life'
- Innovative grants program: project summaries
- MAIF Guidelines - Marketing Of Infant Formulas Via Electronic Media
- Measuring Remoteness: Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) Revised Edition. Occasional Papers: New Series Number 14
- National evaluation of the Sharing Health Care Initiative demonstration projects
- National HIV/AIDS Strategy 2005-2008: Implementation Plan
- National Strategic Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Context July 2003
- National strategy for heart, stroke and vascular health in Australia
- Panic disorder and agoraphobia: Australian treatment guide for consumers and carers, 2005
- Principles for the consideration of interactions with health care professionals for the purpose of interpreting the MAIF Agreement
- Public discussion paper - Adoption of the Globally Harmonised System for Classification and Labelling of Chemicals in Respect to Domestic and Consumer Chemicals Including Pesticides
- Quality Use of Pathology Program (QUPP) Historical Reports
- Reforming the Australian
health care system:
the role of government. Occasional Papers: New Series Number 1
- Regulatory Plan 2009-10
- Regulatory Plan 2010-11
- Regulatory Plan 2011-2012
- Review of 2011 Gene Technology ACT (2000) - Public Submission
- Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 by Anne Goddard
- Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 from I F Turnbull
- Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 from Slater & Gordon Lawyers on behalf of The Safe Food Institute
- Royal Perth Hospital Comments on the Gene Technology Review 2000
- Self-harm: Australian treatment guide for consumers and carers, 2005
- Stigma and discrimination
- Strong Fathers Strong Families
- Submission by Anne Goddard regarding Terms of Reference in the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission by Dr Monica Leggett to the Gene Technology Act 2000 review
- Submission by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission by The University of Newcastle for the 2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Bayer CropScience to the Gene Technology Act 2000 Review
- Submission from AgForce to the Statutory Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited reviewing the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from an Individual to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from an Individual to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from AusBiotech to the 2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (the Act)
- Submission from Beatrice Ludwig to the 2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act
- Submission from Croplife Australia to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foresty to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Elizabeth Hamilton to the 2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Graham Wearne to the Gene Technology Act 2000 Review
- Submission from Individuals at the Institutional Biosafety Committee to the Gene Technology Act 2000 Review
- Submission from Individuals to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Monsanto to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Nuseed Australia to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Peter Olson to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Queensland Institute of Medical Research to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the Australian Seed Federation to the Statutory Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and The Commonealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to the 2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act (2000)
- Submission from the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the GM-free Australia Alliance to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the Grains Research and Development Corporation to the 2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia WA Inc to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the National Farmers' Federation review to the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the Producers Forum to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the Western Australian Farmers Federation Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission to the Gene Technology Act 2000 Review by Mary Gardner
- Submission to the Gene Technology Act 2000 Review from the Minister for Primary Industries and Water
- Submission to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000 from Phil Aitken
- Submission to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000 from Organic and Biodynamic Meats
- Submission to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000 from Tracey Skippings
- Sumbission from Individuals from the Wambyn Organic Olive Farm for the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Sumission to the Department of Health and Ageing from the Pioneer Hi-Bred Australia Pty Ltd to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (the Act)
- Technology, Health and Health Care. Occasional Papers: Health Financing Series Volume 5
- The Ageing Australian Population and Future Health Costs: 1996-2051. Occasional Papers: New Series Number 7
- The Australian Government Response to the 2002 Reviews of the National HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C Strategies
- The Dairy Industry Submission to the Statutory Review of the Gene Technology Acy 2000
- The National Hepatitis C Strategy 2005-2008
- The National Slips and Falls Prevention Project
- The Quality of Australian Healthcare: Current Issues and Future Directions. Occasional Papers: Health Financing Series Volume 6
- The Use of Antibiotics in Food-Producing Animals: Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in Animals and Humans
- Using Mathematical Models to Assess Responses to an Outbreak of an Emerged Viral Respiratory Disease
- Valuing the past ... investing in the future- Evaluation of the National HIV /AIDS Strategy 1993-94 to 1995-96
- Trachoma Surveillance Report 2006 to 2010
- Regulatory Plan 2005-06
- Regulatory Plan 2004-05
- Regulatory Plan 2003-04