From Royal Society Alert - Issue 185

A year's hard labour

Comment by Steve Thompson, CEO, Steve@rsnz.govt.nz

The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification is due to publish the findings of its year-long review at the end of July. The Royal Society presented a detailed brief to the Commission last year, and a witness presentation in January. Our analysis is summarised in the points below. We will be reviewing the Commission’s recommendation when they are available and, over the ensuing months, “Alert” will invite discussion of the implications for New Zealand science and society. Here’s what we said in January:

1. A stronger consultation, control and administrative framework must be instituted. This involves attention to both the HSNO Act and other organisational processes.

2. 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. Improved HSNO legislation should: a) split the Act into two, dealing separately with hazardous substances and new/genetically modified organisms; b) remove unnecessary scientific restrictions on the construction and importation into containment of low-risk GMOs; c) more clearly prescribe the consultations and assessments required for 'low risk' and not 'low risk' contained research and contained field trials; and, d) establish an expert science panel to advise ERMA, the IBSCs, and research institutions on questions of containment.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. If commercial release is contemplated, an effective post-release monitoring system must be developed and established before release occurs. The 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.

7. Inherent in the concerns 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 a ‘science always knows best’ view as patronising. The principle of partnership embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi implies a more even approach.

8. There is a feeling of disenfranchisement in respect to intellectual property rights. Maori are concerned that rights (both spiritual and financial) to customary knowledge with respect to native flora and fauna could be lost through the use of intellectual property law. Current laws and international agreements on intellectual property, especially patents, will require continual review as to what is patentable and what is not.

9. 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. Although stances for and against these issues raise difficulties, ignoring them will raise more.

10. Lastly, we have, above, tried to recommend instruments appropriate to particular problems. It would be inappropriate 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 science.