 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification - submissionsWEEK 8 OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION (Jan 23— Jan 26, 2001)OVERVIEWBoth witnesses and cross-examiners have shown great passion in defending their points of view in cross-examination. However, this passion often results in those with opposing views becoming defensive and argumentative. This is unfortunate as valid arguments from all viewpoints are becoming lost in what effectively becomes a ‘point scoring’ exercise. A better approach is to accept that there will be differences in opinion in respect to the issue of genetic modification (GM) technology in New Zealand. The purpose of cross-examination in the context of a commission of inquiry is to test the evidence of a particular submission, not to attack or defend particular ideologies.
Both witnesses and cross examiners should remain calm and listen to each other without interruption. A cross examiner should not make statements but should ask questions directly relevant to the evidence submitted. The witness should take time to consider the question in order to address the actual issue raised, not where they believe the cross-examiner is heading. This results in a reasoned and constructive analysis of the submission’s evidence that aids the deliberations of the Commissioners.
STRATEGIC ISSUES & OPTIONSThe New Zealand Biotechnology Association (NZBA) stated that it was inconceivable that New Zealand should reject GM, a technology that could substantially improve New Zealand’s welfare. Similar views were expressed by New Zealand Transgenic Animal Users (NZTAU), the Human Genetic s Society of Australasia (NZ) (HGSA(NZ)), and the New Zealand Association of Scientists (NZAS). The Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ) was adamant that research into, and using GM technology should be allowed to continue in New Zealand. This includes field trials, as they are a vital means of assessing the risks and benefits associated with this technology.
Caution, however, was expressed in respect to commercial release of GM organisms in New Zealand. It was the RSNZ’s position that before commercial release could even be contemplated, appropriate regulatory and consultative mechanisms should be in place. If release is then considered appropriate, there should be post release monitoring system should be established. The New Zealand Plant Protection Society NZPPS stated that GM technology should be used in pest management, so long as it was ecologically appropriate to do so.
LAW & LEGISLATIONThere were further calls for the revision of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. The RSNZ provided the Commission with a draft revision of the HSNO Act that would go some way to ameliorating the problems faced by practising scientists. Conversely, PSRG called for more rigid criteria to be instituted. They also recommended that a separate regulatory authority from ANZFA be established to deal with GM foods in New Zealand. The New Zealand Association of Patent Attorneys (NZIPA) confined their own submission to intellectual property issues raised by GM technology. Of special concern were gaps in the protection offered by the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 and difficulties in respect to data confidentiality in the ERMA application process.
RISKS & BENEFITSIn their submission NZTAU outlined the benefits of animal models in respect to health research in New Zealand. Furthermore, the HGSA(NZ) stated that acceptance of GM technology would result in a better health care system through the provision of early, accurate diagnosis and more sensitive application and monitoring of treatments. However, in the opinion of the PSRG we have neither sufficient knowledge nor adequate understanding of biological processes at any level to make a reliable assessment of GM technology.
SOCIAL & CULTURAL ISSUESThe RSNZ submitted that the implications of GM technology are not solely technical or scientific; by necessity they also involve social, cultural and economic factors. They noted that in New Zealand as a whole there is some feeling of disempowerment or mistrust fostered through a perceived lack of access to the ‘experts’ in respect to GM technology. In respect to the concerns of Maori, both spiritual and financial, the RSNZ submitted that the Treaty of Waitangi required a more even ‘partnership’ approach. It was suggested that 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.
The NZIPA outlined and addressed social and ethical concerns in respect to GM technology related patents. Of special note was the suggestion that if special rights are to be given in respect to Maori customary knowledge, in addition to or substitution for any rights given by current law, then it should be by way of separate legislation. The NZIPA considered the Waitangi Tribunal to be the more appropriate forum to consider this difficult issue.
|