Introduction
New Zealand like many other developed countries in the modern world has been going through serious debates about the legality and morality of genetic engineering. This article looks at the setting up of a body, Royal Commission on Genetic Modification or the acronym RCGM on May 2000 to collect views from both the members of the public and scientific experts on the matter of genetic modification.
The commission was supposed to listen to the pros and cons of genetic engineering and act as a barometer on whether gene modification was a safe and necessary procedure that could benefit millions of people hence should be encouraged. Or, these scientists were just playing God and the sooner we close the door on this ludicrous “experiment” the better. The commission completed its duties in July 2001 which was subsequently followed with the presentation of a report on their findings. This report will be the subject of our essay and whether its findings reflect the opinion of the citizens of New Zealand and the developed world as a whole.
Role of the Commission
The Commission came to be formed mostly due to pressures from environmental groups around the 1999 elections and it was supposed to collect data after which it would report on two key issues. The first one was to “explore the strategic options available to New Zealand in the areas of genetic modification” (Genus et al: 244) in plants and other organisms.
The current trends being practiced in this field and other future modifications that might be of interest to the New Zealand government The second role for the commission was to suggest any possible changes to the country’s regulatory and legislative policies so as to accommodate genetic modification in a way that would be deemed suitable by everyone. The recommendations that were made by the Commission would guide the New Zealand Government when making policy decisions regarding this matter.
RCGM fulfilled its mandate and handed in a report that drew so many outcries from the environmentalists and even the more neutral members of the public when it comes to genetic modification. The report was criticized for being one-sided and favoring the experts that were advocating for genetic engineering. The commission still did not present clear definitive guidelines when it comes to legislation that governs gene therapy. Instead the area still remained clouded in shades of grey and the government was more or less in the same place as it had been in 1999.
The only difference was the issue was now in the limelight and the authorities had to make some difficult decisions. Maybe the commission would have done less harm if it had not been formed at all. The major bone of contention with the report that was issued was the commission did not fulfill its role independence effectively. RCGM was supposed to collect views from “interested persons” on the environmental risks, social and ethical effects of genetically modified products and organisms.
For a moment it looked like the RCGM was on a reconciliatory mission as it tried to bring the warring parties to a common ground but that wasn’t its role. However, different viewpoints were given. Proponents of genetic engineering gave glowing reviews about the advantages of genetic modification and requested less regulation so that they could further their studies. They also admitted that there were risks that arise with genetic modification; some of them they weren’t even aware of. However they said with every experimental procedure, there are acceptable risks and why should gene modification be any different? The environmental groups pounced on this.
How could uncertified and incalculable risks be acceptable? The changes these “experts” are introducing to the environment look harmless now but they may manifest themselves in the future in ways they did not envision. The environmental groups even proposed that this was a perfect situation where the precautionary principle should be applied before irreversible changes have already happened. The commissioners were at a cross-road where they could either agree with the views of the majority which were similar to those of the environmentalists or agree with the proponents of genetic modification and run the risk of being at the receiving end of the public fury.
Findings of the Commission
A fact that came out, according to the report, was that a large majority of the public viewed the genetic modification industry with suspicion and changing their viewpoint was going to be a tall order. This industry was actually its own worst enemy and the suspicion and hatred it provoked from members of the public was probably more due to their modes of behavior than the hazardous potentials of its research. For example looking at the nuclear industry, it was also viewed with suspicion and still is. However, through public awareness initiatives like the benefits and hazards of nuclear materials, public opinion is slowly changing.
On the flip-side, the genetic industry was still enclosed in a cocoon and very few people were privy to their activities. The industry was already scandalized in the eyes of the public before it even presented its viewpoint. The commission therefore tried to come up with a framework that represented the values of as many New Zealanders as possible and also the views of the genetic engineering organizations. It doesn’t come as a surprise that this balancing act would be a tall order and therefore one party had to be overlooked in the final report. RCGM released its 1200 page report on 30th July 2001.
To the surprise of everyone, probably even the genetic modification industry, the commission recommended that options on gene modification remain open. The commission also found that the existing legislative and regulatory framework was capable enough to handle this issue but they further suggested the setting up of a bioethics council. According to the recommendations, genetically modified organisms could now be released into the environment under “conditional release” but “a monitoring and a report-back system” (Genus et al: 247) would have to be set up as per the terms of release. With the publication of this report, this issue was far from settled in New Zealand.
From the figures that were released, it became quite obvious that the degree of public opinion and representation was ignored in the final report. “Of the 10,861 public submissions to the RCGM, 9,998 or simply put 98%, were against genetic engineering” (Genus et al: 245). To further anger the public, the mode of protest during the entire period of the commission was one of “non-violence direct action” (Genus et al: 245) lest they risk being labeled “eco-terrorists.
The mode of protest swiftly changed following the publication of the report and this seen by the annihilation of a genetically engineered potato trail at the “Lincoln University Crop and Food Research Institute Laboratory” (Genus et al: 245). I guess the term eco-terrorist seemed more appropriate now this was accomplished by a personal guarantee of 3500 “ordinary citizens” to take matters into their own hands in “regulating” genetic engineering. Offices of the Environmental Risk Management Authority were occupied by anti-GE protestors. A three week hunger strike organized by students ensued in Christchurch. Despite widespread public outcry the government accepted the recommendations of the commission and has continued to do so. The freeze on GMO field releases was lifted on 3rd October giving the GM industries a bit more lee-way.
What Went Wrong?
The question that was on everyone’s lips was how the RCGM came up with such lope-sided recommendations despite widespread public opinion against genetic modification. Part of the problem that faced the commission was the conflicts that arose when coming up with their own version of what qualifies as being an environmental risk. Also the divide between science and technology and nature is a grey area which is subject to varied interpretations depending on your point of view.
However, what many analysts agree was the main cause in the compilation of the erroneous report was the procedures used in obtaining the testimonies of the interested parties. Proposals on genetic engineering being accepted by the commission had to “stand alone”. This meant that the factors influencing your position had to be based on that position only and you could not draw from examples or weaknesses of your opponent’s proposal. For example, a scientist who is pro-GM will give the advantages of his technology and will not focus on the weaknesses being raised by the environmental groups since this was against commission rules.
The environmental groups could not present their cases effectively because a big portion of their argument involved discrediting the GM industry and this would not be possible since the commission made it clear that you cannot draw facts from the other side to state your case. The answers to the two different viewpoints would therefore be viewed in isolation from each other.
Therefore, environmentalists presented their views concerning genetic engineering from a “holistic world-view” (Genus et al: 245) where they accentuated the interrelation of the various elements of the ecosystem, the relationship between the environment and society, and lastly the effects of genetic engineering cannot be artificially separated from the eco-system. This might have worked in favor of the pro-GM camp since the environmental groups and the ant-GM citizens presented different and sometimes incompatible perspectives on their issue while the Pro-GM experts were able to present a unified direct perspective from their camp.
The common rhetoric that came out of the pro-GM camp was the economic benefits that would arise with encouraging genetic engineering. Environmental activists were of the common opinion the environment was under threat with the adaptation of genetic engineering. Their major undoing was that the average citizen still did not grasp the risks brought by adaptation of GM due to limited knowledge on the topic hence they presented half-baked arguments. In all fairness, it is now evidently clear why RCGM were pro-GM in their final report.
Summary
The report did certainly raise public awareness on genetic modification in spite of the fact that it did not fulfill its mandate. (The RCGM) In a way the participation of the public in determining the risk exposure to the implementation of a particular technology was a path in the right direction and future decisions regarding investment in risky technology would now be a matter of public opinion. Even though the commission’s role was to unify public opinion and come up with a common ground, its actions produced the opposite effect and instead split the issue into far-right and far-left politics even among people who had moderate views on genetic engineering.
The ambitions of the RCGM were thwarted by organized political machinery in the pro-GM camp that ended up scuttling the main issue in the first place! This was to look at ways of adapting GM technology without infringing on the already existing natural balance in the ecosystem. What the public does not and probably never will understand is what is the point of recreating maize in the lab yet the plant has been growing independently for thousands of years? Maybe the next challenge would be to recreate human workers to replace those in the factories hence save on labor costs. The reality is most of these new “modifications” are driven by profit and greed.
Agriculture is a multi-billion dollar business and if you can come up with plants and other organisms in the lab instead of waiting for six months to harvest, which option would generate the greatest profit? Biotechnology and genetic engineering could be the answer to some killer diseases like diabetes and the chronic food shortages plaguing third world countries but it is a double-edged sword. If their implementation is guided by the right principles, then it will be the silver bullet it is cranked up to be; but if profit margins will determine whether I’m getting another pair of hands from the lab to increase my work output, to which god will I pray to for a pay hike?
References
Genus A, Rogers-Hayden T, (2005) “Genetic Engineering in Aotearoa, New Zealand: A case of opening up or closing down debate?” Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement M Leach, I Scoones & B Wynne (editions), Zed Books, London, pp 244-248.