Scientists urge fix on ‘outdated’ GE laws

New Zealand’s top scientific body has joined calls for an overhaul of genetic engineering (GE) laws, after finding an “urgent need” for a fresh look at how we might use the contentious technology.

The Prime Minister’s chief science adviser has also shared with Jacinda Ardern her belief that laws governing gene editing technologies are no longer fit for purpose.

Since 2003, GE and genetically modified organisms have been tightly controlled by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act — and there have been growing calls from the biotech sector for a legal review.

Now, in the strongest signal to the Government yet, a high-powered panel convened by Royal Society Te Apa¯ rangi has concluded the time has come for change.

It favours moving away from a black-and-white view of what is and isn’t genetic modification, towards a more nuanced approach that looks at specific applications, and what benefits and risks they carry.

The panel, which has just released a pair of discussion papers, heard

arguments around gene editing in three areas — pest control, primary industries and medicine — finding pros and cons in each.

Panel co-chair Professor Barry Scott said there was an appetite to consider certain therapeutic geneediting applications in medicine, so long as it was safe and with few negative side effects.

There was also an interest in using controversial gene drives to cut pest populations, but again, as long as the benefits outweighed the risks.

“However, there were concerns over unintended consequences of removing species and around the risks of gene-edited pests finding their way back to their native countries.”

In the primary sector, the panel found there was potential for gene editing to support our competitive edge and protect flora and fauna.

But there were also fears over unintended consequences, and worries that New Zealand’s brand — or any “GM free” trade advantage — could be damaged.

“Across all scenarios, feedback from Ma¯ori participants highlighted the importance of whakapapa and mauri, involving tangata whenua around indigenous species, protection of data, and intellectual property implications of gene editing taonga species,” Scott said.

Ultimately, the review found our legal framework was becoming increasingly out of date in face of global advances, and called for a refreshed system with clearer definitions and a focus on applications rather than the GE process itself.

They were points strongly echoed in chief science adviser Professor Juliet Gerrard’s briefing to Ardern.

Gerrard said regulations shouldn’t hinder asking and answering key ethical questions, noting that Kiwis would probably accept an edited gene if it cured cancer, but would reject the idea of using the science to modify children, as had happened with a rogue Chinese researcher.

“We need an honest discussion of the hazards and benefits of the myriad possible applications of genetic tools,” she said.

We need an honest discussion of the hazards and benefits of . . . genetic tools.

Professor Juliet Gerrard Prime Minister’s science adviser