❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses Dr. Judy Carman's publications on animal feeding studies and her position at the University of Adelaide, highlighting concerns about attacks on her reputation due to her GM food research.
AnsweredQoN 1090Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS - SOUTH AUSTRALIAN STUDY
I refer to my question without notice 1046, asked on Wednesday, 14 November, on genetically modified organisms. There is a typo in this question, so I hope the correct context was gathered. (1) What peer-reviewed scientific papers on animal feeding studies - as it should read - has Dr Judy Carman published? (2) Is Dr Carman still a senior affiliate lecturer at the University of Adelaide? Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to my question without notice 1046, asked on Wednesday, 14 November, on genetically modified organisms. There is a typo in this question, so I hope the correct context was gathered. (1) What peer-reviewed scientific papers on animal feeding studies - as it should read - has Dr Judy Carman published? (2) Is Dr Carman still a senior affiliate lecturer at the University of Adelaide? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. We either did pick up the typo, or nobody noticed it and it was read as “animal” anyway, but the answer assumes that the word is “animal. (1) I am informed that Dr Judy Carman has been involved in at least 25 animal feeding studies throughout her career. However, I am unable to advise how many of those trials were submitted to scientific journals for peer review. (2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
(1) What peer-reviewed scientific papers on animal feeding studies - as it should read - has Dr Judy Carman published? (2) Is Dr Carman still a senior affiliate lecturer at the University of Adelaide? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. We either did pick up the typo, or nobody noticed it and it was read as “animal” anyway, but the answer assumes that the word is “animal. (1) I am informed that Dr Judy Carman has been involved in at least 25 animal feeding studies throughout her career. However, I am unable to advise how many of those trials were submitted to scientific journals for peer review. (2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
(2) Is Dr Carman still a senior affiliate lecturer at the University of Adelaide? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. We either did pick up the typo, or nobody noticed it and it was read as “animal” anyway, but the answer assumes that the word is “animal. (1) I am informed that Dr Judy Carman has been involved in at least 25 animal feeding studies throughout her career. However, I am unable to advise how many of those trials were submitted to scientific journals for peer review. (2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. We either did pick up the typo, or nobody noticed it and it was read as “animal” anyway, but the answer assumes that the word is “animal. (1) I am informed that Dr Judy Carman has been involved in at least 25 animal feeding studies throughout her career. However, I am unable to advise how many of those trials were submitted to scientific journals for peer review. (2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. We either did pick up the typo, or nobody noticed it and it was read as “animal” anyway, but the answer assumes that the word is “animal. (1) I am informed that Dr Judy Carman has been involved in at least 25 animal feeding studies throughout her career. However, I am unable to advise how many of those trials were submitted to scientific journals for peer review. (2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
(1) I am informed that Dr Judy Carman has been involved in at least 25 animal feeding studies throughout her career. However, I am unable to advise how many of those trials were submitted to scientific journals for peer review. (2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
(2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
(1) What peer-reviewed scientific papers on animal feeding studies - as it should read - has Dr Judy Carman published? (2) Is Dr Carman still a senior affiliate lecturer at the University of Adelaide? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. We either did pick up the typo, or nobody noticed it and it was read as “animal” anyway, but the answer assumes that the word is “animal. (1) I am informed that Dr Judy Carman has been involved in at least 25 animal feeding studies throughout her career. However, I am unable to advise how many of those trials were submitted to scientific journals for peer review. (2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
(2) Is Dr Carman still a senior affiliate lecturer at the University of Adelaide? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. We either did pick up the typo, or nobody noticed it and it was read as “animal” anyway, but the answer assumes that the word is “animal. (1) I am informed that Dr Judy Carman has been involved in at least 25 animal feeding studies throughout her career. However, I am unable to advise how many of those trials were submitted to scientific journals for peer review. (2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. We either did pick up the typo, or nobody noticed it and it was read as “animal” anyway, but the answer assumes that the word is “animal. (1) I am informed that Dr Judy Carman has been involved in at least 25 animal feeding studies throughout her career. However, I am unable to advise how many of those trials were submitted to scientific journals for peer review. (2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
I thank Hon Barry House for some notice of the question. We either did pick up the typo, or nobody noticed it and it was read as “animal” anyway, but the answer assumes that the word is “animal. (1) I am informed that Dr Judy Carman has been involved in at least 25 animal feeding studies throughout her career. However, I am unable to advise how many of those trials were submitted to scientific journals for peer review. (2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
(1) I am informed that Dr Judy Carman has been involved in at least 25 animal feeding studies throughout her career. However, I am unable to advise how many of those trials were submitted to scientific journals for peer review. (2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
(2) I understand that as a direct result of the government’s announcement to provide grant funding to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research - of which Dr Carman is a principal - to undertake what will be one of the first independent feeding trials designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health from the consumption of GM food, Dr Carman has been subjected to concerted attacks on her reputation and professionalism by a minority in the community who may have a vested interest in stopping the study. Dr Carman has since been subjected to pressure from the University of Adelaide following lobbying by those opposed to the study; as a result, I understand that Dr Carman’s position as affiliate senior lecturer with the University of Adelaide is currently under review. From the Western Australian government’s perspective, we are aware of concerns held by the majority of Western Australian consumers about the health and safety of GM foods. When approached by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research to provide a grant for one of the first comprehensive and independent long-term animal feeding studies designed to measure outcomes relevant to human health, the government responded favourably, because the study will add to the limited knowledge of the government and consumers about the safety, or otherwise, of GM foods. I find it totally unacceptable and extraordinarily curious that Dr Carman should be attacked in such a manner for simply seeking to add to the limited body of scientific knowledge surrounding the relatively new technology. To some extent these attacks can be expected from those with a commercial interest. However, I would have thought that universities that hold themselves up to be places that encourage independent scientific inquiry and endeavour would be above such influences. Such attacks only serve to make me ask what the opponents of the study fear from Dr Carman’s work, and I believe the Western Australian public are equally justified in asking the same question. When the feeding trial is completed, it is Dr Carman’s intention to publish the study protocol and study results in scientific journals for peer review. The Western Australian community, scientists and others with an interest in this matter can then judge Dr Carman on her work. In the meantime, Dr Carman should be allowed to proceed with her work unimpeded by those with vested interests and others willing to undertake attacks on Dr Carman’s reputation and professionalism on their behalf.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.