Reflections on the first two weeks of a Royal Commission
Francis Wevers, Executive Director, NZ LSN
29 October 2000
Our perception is that the greatest moments of history are recorded on glorious battlefields or in vaulted majestic
halls and courtrooms. The founding moments of nations and the discovery or enunciation of great ideas should happen in
an appropriately grand place.
But the reality of often more tawdry and the rooms in which momentous history is made are often non-descript and
unremarkable, giving no physical signposts to the importance of the issues being determined. This is often particularly
true of the great discoveries in science.
So it is with the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification in New Zealand.
Meeting in a Spartan space on the 11th floor of a weary office building the greatest issue of the new millennium is
being deliberated upon by two men and two women who are expected to exercise the judgement of Solomon for a country, if
not for the whole globe.
For two weeks now Sir Thomas Eichelbaum and his fellow Royal Commissioners have been listening to, and occasionally
questioning, some of the best scientists in New Zealand about the mysteries, the moral dilemmas and the mythology of
modern biotechnology; in particular genetic modification.
The Commissioners responsibility is to advise the Government of New Zealand on the strategic options for this small
island nation, which derives 65% of its Gross National Product from growing plants and animals. In other words to make a
choice, either to use the new tools which science has developed or, to adopt a basis for economic development which
excludes techniques many are opposed to or fearful of.
But, is this a popularity poll where the views of the majority determine the outcome?
The Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference make it clear it is not; though the views of the public are important in
coming to an informed opinion, which will have some prospect of political implementation following the presentation of
the final report.
So it is about the choices we make and the basis on which we make them.
As these first two weeks have played out it has been hard not to be excited by the scope and the complexity of the
science which is being undertaken in New Zealand. It has also been hard not to be impressed by the dedication of
scientists and institutions who are trying to compete in a global knowledge race with frugal financial resources which
is made even harder by a regulatory regime which appears to assume all biotech research is inherently harmful.
Impressed by the use of GM technology for everything from finding new species of rare and endangered native species of
fish and frogs, to providing hope of eradication of introduced pests.
Impressed by the use of GM technology to
· Identify a possible cure for stomach cancer in Maori;
· Make pine trees which are more ecologically friendly
· Produce better grass varieties to reduce greenhouse gases
· Identify twinning genes with all sorts of implications for human health developments
· Make human insulin and hepatitis B vaccines to solve major Maori health issues
And impressed by the way the list goes on.
But New Zealand is still some distance from commercialising the work of its scientists.
And then there are those who doubt (or are opposed). While Greenpeace, the Green Party, the organics industry, Friends
of the Earth and others have not had to make their case in opposition yet they have had the opportunity to test the
basis of the assertions of benefit made by scientists.
Some themes are emerging.
The organics people have held, and will probably continue to hold, that their growing niche industry is seriously
threatened by any release of GMOs into the environment.
Thus far their concerns about GMOs seem to be based on a single proposition; that possible pollen drift and horizontal
gene flow has the potential to “contaminate” organic produce or the soil. This contamination will result in destruction
of an organic farmers business.
In addition they argue that international markets for organic produce hold much greater potential while markets for GM
produce are shrinking, particularly in Europe.
The countervailing point of view, expressed by many witnesses so far, has been that organics and other agricultural and
horticultural production methods can co-exist in New Zealand as they do elsewhere in the world. In addition, gene
technology is essential for identifying and developing new strains of organic plants, which are pest resistant, thereby
improving organic yields.
The line of questions now appearing from Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission suggests a willingness of the part of
the Commissioners to consider how different farming activities might co-exist and what management techniques are
available to ensure all interests are protected. Refugia protocols, buffer zones and the agreed separation distances for
certified seed cropping may well provide that guidance.
Despite their best efforts the organics groups and other critics have not been able to show that horizontal gene
transfer is something of concern to knowledgeable scientists. While the phenomenon is acknowledged all the available
science holds it to be very rare and unlikely to present problems.
Something tells me, despite the scientists being consistent in their analysis, that this issue will not go away. The
possible risks, remote though they be, are fundamental to the paradigm within which opponents of the science are
working. Therefore to concede this point would be to critically wound their case. Better to try to get a concession from
the scientists by piling hypothesis on hypothesis (after all no scientist will assert 100% certainty on anything) than
to give even a millimetre.
And from these little concessions a mountain will be made.
That paradigm is very persistent and not to share it is to be a disbeliever in the true faith. It acts in a way to
exclude ideas that may challenge the underlying creed.
As an example, when the Life Sciences Network first established it website we were contacted, almost immediately, by GE
Free New Zealand proposing that we provide links to each other’s websites. The Network readily agreed and established
the link, which remains to this day. GE Free NZ, after a brief listing, removed the link to the Network. It’s obviously
too dangerous to allow the arguments which run counter to be accessed directly.
Interesting too that the Green Party, as a party in Parliament, is participating daily in the work of the Royal
Commission. They will have to debate the outcome and deliberate on implementation when it finally comes to Parliament.
The constitutional propriety of this appears to stretch several existing boundaries about the interpretation of conflict
of interest.
The Green Party, extremely sensitive to accusations that GE Free New Zealand means a New Zealand free of any sort of GE,
is seeking to draw a line where “ GM in containment in a laboratory is okay; in the environment is not”. It has been
hard to argue against the very real benefits identified by New Zealand scientists for New Zealand people.
Acknowledging that spurning GM technology for medicines and health benefits is politically dangerous has led to a
conundrum for the Green politicians. “How do we find a way to stay true to the cause, yet not lose too many votes in the
process?”
So they are concentrating their attacks on uses in agriculture and in food – the two areas most important to New
Zealand’s future economic well being.
So the outward agenda has been to try to find some compromise position. What they will find however is that compromises
have to have some internal logic and while logic is not necessarily part of politics it is the basis on which the public
makes choices.
And this Royal Commission is about choice. Everyone recognises that and we also recognise the inescapable fact that
ultimately it is the choice of consumers which will determine how fast, or slowly, we adopt genetic modification as a
technology.
The opponents are saying the consumers don’t want GMOs. They may well be right because most market surveys and opinion
polls appear to show GM technology is not a preference.
But that consumer reaction does not make the science or the technology wrong. It merely makes it less preferred at the
present time because consumers have not derived direct or indirect personal benefit from the application of the
technology.
The task for the Royal Commission is to determine whether or not choice should continue to be available or we should
exclude an avenue of choice on non-scientific grounds.
The religious and Maori opponents have not participated in the formal hearings to date. For Maori this may be because
they have an alternative through their hui where, unfortunately, the ideas expressed will not be subject to the scrutiny
which cross-examination affords.
With 2 weeks gone and 12 weeks of hearings to go it is too early to predict the outcome but we can feel comfortable
about the process and the opportunity it has provided for a structured and rational debate.