Gene editing still too big a risk

Technologies are not as precise as some claim. We are wise to be cautious, writes Jodie Bruning.

In 2014 the High Court ruled that new gene-editing techniques are techniques of genetic modification. A recent European court ruling upheld this decision. A panel formed by the Royal Society Te Apa¯ rangi would like that it were different (Call for gene editing of pests, Aug 13).

But why? New Zealand’s GE legislation remains robust and fit for purpose. It recognises that unanticipated problems stemming from genetic engineering technologies may not be reversible nor containable, and so it has adopted a praiseworthy precautionary approach.

There is flexibility – an applicant may apply to the Environmental Protection Authority to conduct research. But there is precaution; our legislation recognises that once a live GE-modified organism is released, we have no effective control.

Science hasn’t ‘‘moved ahead’’ of the legislation, as some claim. Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility argues that the public must be informed of the continued limitations and risks of new GE technologies. The technologies are too new to leave safely to faith, and are not as precise as promised. Just this month, unexpected DNA sequences were detected in gene-edited, dehorned cattle.

Regulation of technology is normal and in the public’s interest – it is not extremist, and it frequently leads to better products and better public safety.

Science lobbying

The reports released by the Royal Society are troubling as they resemble a lobbyist approach. Off-target adverse effects, for example, are alluded to, but not sufficiently explored.

There are many problems with potential applications of the new editing tools. The hypothetical CRISPR/Casbased gene drive has been mooted as a way of modifying or eliminating all target organisms. The downstream consequences are difficult to anticipate.

There are considerable problems with genetic drive technology based on gene editing ‘‘such as its inefficacy in many organisms, the quick emergence of resistance, and with its control, such as irreversibility and the impossibility of containment or recall once released’’, according to Swiss scientists.

It is impossible to extrapolate these problems into real-life models and take into account issues including genetic variability of wild species, interactions with other species and ecosystem impact.

Biological systems are inherently very complex – and largely still well beyond much of our scientific understanding.

Regulatory and knowledge gaps

Without a Bioethics Council, there is no public entity in place to bring attention to the continued risks, limitations and uncertainties of genetic engineering and to recognise the unknown consequences.

New Zealand is not good at administrative control of regulation about GE matters. The 2001 royal commission set out 49 recommendations to ensure safeguards were in place; by 2008, 17 had not been implemented.

The public do not know how much genetically engineered product is in their imported food. There are no regular reports to assess whether GE content reflects regulatory requirements.

The field trials that have been done have been mired in controversy. Trials at AgResearch’s Ruakura centre were quietly disbanded, but not before a series of expensive problems relating to data management, ethics issues and animal welfare concerns.

Risk does not solely come from inside New Zealand. Overseas GE technologies potentially pose a biosecurity threat.

A Sustainability Council report acknowledged that gene drive technology, for example, ‘‘is no ordinary technology – one that ‘knows no political boundaries’ – instead it requires international governance measures in order to regulate appropriately a technology that has the capability – sometimes the intention – to ‘wipe a species off the face of the earth’ ’’.

Science funding

Many genetic scientists in New Zealand are dependent on funding that requires them to generate intellectual property for licensing. We cannot ignore that they or their employers may have a vested interest in the financial benefits that might accrue from a deregulated marketplace.

The rest are often at risk of being ostracised or having grant applications rejected if they are not seen to be friendly to commercial work in biotechnology, because of who sits on grant panels.

Further, there is a gap in state funding for basic science to explore unintended effects of these technologies. This leads to a market-science distortion in research, and a relative inability of public science to appropriately address probabilities of both environmental and health hazards so as to inform the public and regulatory public policy.

To date, independent scientists who have expressed reservations about GE or its deregulation have not been routinely sought out by media, and paucity of funding means basic scientists lack the power and publicity of organisations such as the Royal Society.

This makes it very difficult to have a balanced public-interest conversation when the society, as the relevant statutory body, excludes an entire side of the debate from its deliberations with a well-funded PR campaign about a complex issue that is much more powerful than the voices that might contest it.

Jodie Bruning is a trustee of Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility and a member of the National Council of Soil and Health.