21Feb 25
A recent publication by researchers from Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, explores public perceptions and engagement preferences related to the development and use of genetic technologies for invasive alien species management in Australia. Invasive species have played a key role in 60% of global plant and animal extinctions and 90% of global extinctions on islands. In Australia, they also have a devastating toll on agriculture and have caused significant economic losses to the national economy.
Advanced genetic technologies are being explored as a way to tackle this issue, with the hope of making efforts more scalable, targeted, and potentially cost-effective. Stakeholder and public engagement is a crucial part of this research, allowing scientists to understand and respond to public concerns and feedback throughout the research and development journey. CSIRO Research Scientist Dr Elizabeth Hobman, who led the research, explained that although several public engagement activities have already been performed in the genetic technology space, practitioners are still grappling with the question of how to meaningfully engage with the public. “In this study, our aim was to ask a representative sample of the Australian public directly how they would like to be engaged and informed in the future,” she said.
Once widespread, populations of the Endangered Norfolk Island Green Parrot fell to fewer than 50 birds in the 1970s due to threats including invasive species. Conservation efforts now offer hope for its recovery.
The study surveyed 1,149 Australians. The sample was segmented into four groups based on participants’ attitudes towards the use of genetic tools for invasive species control: Certain Objectors (5.8%), Fence Sitters (30.9%), Cautious Supporters (37.6%), and Certain Supporters (25.7%). At the start of the survey, participants were provided with a general definition of synthetic biology. They also viewed a simplified technology explainer, called a Technology Storyboard, that explained the issue of invasive species in Australia, existing control methods, and a potential genetic approach to help manage these species.
The results showed that most respondents would feel satisfied with “light touch” engagement efforts, such as accessible online content via social media or receiving a research summary report. While interest in more intensive engagement (i.e., formally contributing to decisions through written submissions, or participating in public information sessions) was lower, this approach could be suitable for those who hold negative views towards these technologies (i.e., Certain Objectors). In fact, one of the significant differences between the four groups was the fact that almost half of the Certain Objectors believed the public should be directly involved in decisions about these technologies compared to only around one in ten participants from the other groups. Consistent with a “light touch” engagement approach, many respondents also favored the public simply being consulted with, and their opinions considered.
Across the board, respondents wanted to know about the potential risks, and the regulation and controls surrounding the gene editing technology; there was less interest in knowing about the claimed benefits of the technology. “The focus on risks as opposed to the benefits is consistent with previous research we have performed, which suggests that risk aversion processes may be activated when hearing about novel genetic solutions such as these,” Dr Hobman explains. Those who held more positive views also showed an interest in the scientific processes and techniques, while people who held more negative views wanted to know what was being done to deal with social and ethical issues.
“Overall, our findings show that public engagement is not one-size-fits-all and that a suite of methods will likely be needed to capture perspectives from diverse audiences,” Dr Hobman concludes. “The results told us that most people would feel satisfied with lighter touch methods of engagement. However, people with stronger concerns or more negative attitudes might at times favor more intensive, formal methods of engagement to get their views across.”
These findings offer initial insights into how different segments of the population might want to be engaged in proposals related to the use of genetic tools for invasive alien species control. However, more research will be required to further explore these insights and gain a better understanding of the factors that shape the perspectives of each group. As researchers continue to explore these innovations, ensuring that the needs and preferences of the wider population are also met will be key to their success.
Read the full study here.
