Genetic research on predators necessary
If there was one issue that stood a chance of finding common ground on genetic modification, it was the technology’s potential to deal with the pests ravaging our forests and native birds. But political ideology has put paid to that. Conservation Minister and Green MP Eugenie Sage has ruled out genetic technologies being employed in our pest-free 2050 strategy.
In an email from the minister obtained by Newshub last week, Sage outlined her instructions to Predator Free 2050 Ltd, the company set up to steer our pest-free efforts: It should ‘‘not to be involved in any research with genetically modified organisms and technologies such as Crispr or gene editing’’.
Crispr is the incredibly powerful technology that allows scientists to snip out, add in or alter fragments of DNA in the genome of a living cell.
In labs around the world, scientists are using gene editing to develop drought-resistant crops and explore how to tackle genetic diseases in animals and humans.
Genetically modified mosquitoes have already been released in Malaysia and Brazil that carry a self-limiting gene that kills their offspring before they reach maturity. Those countries are using them to stop the spread of diseases such as zika, dengue fever and malaria.
Could the technology dent the population of rats, stoats and possums here? Quite possibly, but a huge amount of work has to be done to study its efficacy and identify any risks it poses.
We should be steaming ahead on investigating that potential and, at the same time, fostering a serious national debate about whether we should eventually use it.
Instead, Sage wants the scientific effort to go into ‘‘new traps, new lures, new toxins’’, with $20 million earmarked for investment. Even her own officials advise that genetic tools need to be part of the mix.
With the prospect of a beech mast event this year sparking a feeding frenzy among our mammalian pests, we can expect a record amount of 1080 poison to be dropped. That may stem the tide for the moment, but the opportunity to investigate a sustainable alternative and foster informed public discussion on the future use of gene editing has lost out to ideology.
Even Eugenie Sage’s own officials advise that genetic tools need to be part of the mix.