Home page Top menu bar
   
191 pixel spacer

The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification - submissions

The Royal Society of New Zealand

Submission to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

Presenter: Dr Steve Thompson, CEO, The Royal Society

24 January 2001

 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning your Honour and members of the Royal Commission.

  1. My name is Steve Thompson. I am Chief Executive of the Royal Society of New Zealand.
  2. The Royal Society acknowledges that the Commissioners will already have read our submission. We will use this opportunity, therefore, to provide you with a summary of the advice from the Royal Society. We have also been able to elaborate the detail of our recommendations, and we include proposals for a redraft of a New Organisms Act. I seek your Honour’s leave to hand up copies of my presentation for your records.

    THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND

  3. I was appointed Chief Executive of the Royal Society of New Zealand in August 2000. I arrived just in time to respond to the Commission’s call for expressions of interest. My background is in agriculture and economics, with experience in Canada as Director General of agricultural research and agricultural inspection, plus several years working in the area of forestry and sustainable development.
  4. The Royal Society activities are supported by over 1000 members, 273 Fellows, 53 constituent organisations, 9 branches, 8 affiliate organisations, and a staff of 35, with an operating budget of $5 million.
  1. The Royal Society represents the sciences, social sciences and technology (S&T) in New Zealand and internationally. The Royal Society Act of 1997 requires it to:

5.1 Promote public awareness, knowledge, and understanding of S&T.

5.2 Advance S&T education.

5.3 Provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community.

5.4 Encourage, promote, and recognise excellence in S&T.

5.5 Provide support and a conduit for the professional needs and development of scientists and technologists.

5.6 Establish and administer for all members a code of professional standards and ethics in S&T.

  1. The Royal Society has through its members’ bodies a special interest in Genetic Modification technology because it represents a qualified and independent range of scientific and social scientific professionals, many of whom have been called upon to use their expertise in this field. All members, Fellows, constituent organisations, branches and affiliates of the Society were invited to contribute to the submission, and several writing teams contributed to the text.
  2. The Royal Society also administers New Zealand’s Marsden Fund, a $25.8 million per year fund which is set up to:
    • Enhance the underpinning research knowledge base in New Zealand, and contribute to the global advancement of knowledge in Biochemical and Biomedical Sciences; Cellular, Molecular and Physiological Biology; Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour; Earth Sciences and Astronomy; Humanities; Mathematical and Information Sciences; Physical Sciences and Engineering; and the Social Sciences.
    • Broaden and deepen the research skill base in New Zealand
    • Undertake research that is investigator driven.
Some $9.4 million per year of Marsden funding goes to projects which use genetic techniques to some extent. These projects fall in three main categories of basic research: DNA mapping and sequencing; gene function and expression; and horizontal gene transfer.

RESPONSE BY THE ROYAL SOCIETY TO THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON GENETIC MODIFICATION

    1. The Royal Society responded to the Commission’s call, and quickly mobilised teams of expert writers. The text they produced was subject to peer review before submission to the Royal Commission at the end of October 2000. Since then we have been able to explore and debate the issues further. Although some differing views are explored within our submission, there is a core of common understanding and concern. Our submissions today represent a common view amongst the different representatives contributing to our written submission.
    2. The Royal Society presents three witnesses this morning. These are: Rosemary Du Plessis MRSNZ, Professor George Petersen FRSNZ and myself. My task is to introduce the overall submission and to summarise the points on which the Royal Society is agreed. I will also touch on areas where there are differences of opinion among members of the Royal Society.
    3. Rosemary will deal in greater depth with societal issues and George will deal with the biological sciences.

LEGAL FRAME WORK AND SYSTEMS OF MANAGEMENT PROPOSED BY THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE AREA OF GENETIC MODIFICATION

  1. A stronger consultation, control and administrative framework must be instituted. Improved HSNO legislation is urgently required. The Royal Society proposes that:
      1. The consultations and assessments required for contained research contained field trials and possible release should be more clearly prescribed. (§12-26 below).
      2. Unnecessary scientific restrictions on low-risk genetic modifications be removed (§27-29 below).
      3. The Act be split into two, dealing separately with hazardous substances and new organisms (§30 below).
    1. New Zealand should proceed with contained research and contained field trials into and involving GM technology. Field trials are an essential element in risk and benefit assessment.
    2. The legislation and/or regulations should include not only scientific risk assessment, but also stronger mechanisms than currently exist to include cultural, ethical and social issues and concerns where appropriate at both the research and field trial levels.
    3. Before any general or specific decision on commercial release of genetically modified organisms is taken, more effective consultation mechanisms than currently exist must be developed to include cultural, ethical and social issues and used to decide whether or not to proceed with commercial release.
    4. If commercial release is contemplated, an effective post-release monitoring system must be developed and established before release occurs.
    5. On commercial release, this monitoring system must be implemented and reviewed. Consideration should be given to how those benefiting from the use of GM technologies would meet the costs of any adverse consequences of the commercial release of GMOs.
    6. Current laws and international agreements on intellectual property, especially patents, will require continual review as to what is patentable and what is not.

SOCIETAL ISSUES

  1. The Royal Society recognises three main reasons for caution in progressing with genetic modification technology. To use a simile, a "Keep Out" sign may be put around an area because it is asserted to be:
  • Sacred
  • Owned by someone else
  • Risky and dangerous
All three reasons find their place in the legal framework proposed. Where non-negotiable beliefs are held, they must be heard. Where ownership of the genetic resource is asserted, ownership must be resolved. Where risks are apparent, both the probabilities and the individual/group perceptions of risk must be weighed.
  1. The implications of GM technology are not solely technical or scientific; by necessity they also involve social, cultural and economic factors; the aim of genetic modification technology must be to create benefits for society.
  2. Some members of society express a principled, non-negotiable opposition to genetic modification (GM). Although stances for and against raise difficulties, ignoring them will raise more.
  3. All New Zealanders must have an opportunity to be involved, therefore, in the consultation process relating to genetic modification technology. RSNZ submission, part B, paragraph 89, states: "Whilst recognising tangata whenua, we also have to extend our manaakitanga responsibilities by including all New Zealanders in [the consultation] process as all will be affected by the outcome".
  4. In New Zealand as a whole there is some feeling of disempowerment, of mistrust fostered through a perceived lack of access to the ‘experts’ in respect to the technology of genetic modification (RSNZ submission, part B, paragraph 100). Therefore, appropriate communication strategies need to be devised to improve the dialogue between ‘experts’, ‘policy makers’ and the public in general.
  5. Public Good funding for GM research should cover biological, risk, social, cultural and economic aspects, drawing on specialised expertise as appropriate.

    6. PERSPECTIVES OF MAORI

  6. Opposition from many Maori has its main, but not exclusive, basis in the concept of whakapapa. See RSNZ submission, part B, paragraph 87: "One of the loudest arguments against genetics and biotechnology is coming from our own Kaumatua, who are saying very clearly that no one should corrupt or interfere with whakapapa. The sanctity and respect for whakapapa is to be maintained".
  7. Inherent in the concern expressed by Maori is the question of who decides? Current implementation of consultation mechanisms seems to imply a one-sided ‘ownership’ approach. Some Maori view this ‘science always knows best’ view as patronising. The principle of partnership embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi implies a more even approach. (RSNZ submission, part B, paragraph 81).
  8. Furthermore, there is a feeling of disempowerment in respect to intellectual property rights. Maori are concerned that rights (both spiritual and financial) to customary knowledge in respect to native flora and fauna could be lost through the use of intellectual property law. A more balanced partnership approach is required.

    BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

  9. The Hazardous substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 is overly prescriptive in respect to low risk experimentation.
  10. This excessive control of low risk experimentation is pulling both ERMA resources and those of applicants into repetitive paperwork, and detracting from a more balanced approach to ERMA requirements, which are to evaluate risks, costs and benefits, confer approvals; monitor and coordinate compliance with the HSNO Act, and promote public awareness. (RSNZ submission, part A, paragraph 21).
  11. Amendment of the HSNO Act in the short-term should include: a) to redefine the term "new organism" in a way that will distinguish more clearly between the risks inherent in contained laboratory experimentation, field tests and general release. b) to allow Institutional Biological Safety Committees (IBSCs) to undertake initial assessments of Category C applications and recommend to an ERMA sub-committee for approval. (RSNZ submission, witness brief for Prof G. Petersen, paragraph 23).
  12. However, minor amendments will only provide a short-term solution leaving the HSNO Act fundamentally flawed. A way to address this is to divide the HSNO Act into two separate Acts, one of which controls the administration of GM technology in New Zealand. (RSNZ submission, witness brief for Prof G. Petersen, paragraph 24).
  13. Field trials are an integral part of research in respect to GM technology, and are the only way that the risks and benefits associated with GM technology can be ascertained. Restricting research will not advance the understanding of these problems nor keep New Zealand abreast of international scientific developments. (RSNZ submission, part A, paragraph 96).
  14. The Royal Society recommends that the appropriate instruments be used to apply to particular problems. It would be inappropriate, for example, to use a remedy such as limitation on research in a case where a company might contravene regulations or act unethically following commercial release. Such matters are best dealt with through legislation controlling business, not by suppressing all scientific research.

 

Our Royal Commission homepage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advisory | Awards | Directory | Education | Events| Funding | Members | News | Publishing | Shop | Topics | Policy |

Problems with the site? Contact the webmaster