By Helmut Lubbers

First published in the Wellington City Voice, 11 May 2000.

On the first weekend in May, our national museum was the site for a conference on the perceived risks and benefits of gene technology in New Zealand.

It was hosted by the Environmental Risk Management Authority, which considers applications for gene experimentation in New Zealand. Some 200 speakers and the members of the public had a chance to voice their opinions - that is, as far as the packed programme and the moderators allowed. When one member of the public spoke about genetic engineering to produce "double-muscled" sheep, ERMA's communications manager Karen Cronin intervened to stop the discussion, saying the Authority still had to decide on that particular application.

Some of the eight members of the Authority judging genetically engineered organisms seem firmly integrated in the community of geneticists who see more benefits than risks.

When job and income depend on funding for gene technology research that is the fashion of the time, it is difficult to resist peer pressure and retain independence. Perception of risks and benefits easily becomes selective, with a tendency to support the work one is doing.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority's chief executive, Bas Walker, explained that risk assessment is an art, not a science. It includes judgements, it is a business of weighing, he said.

This underlines the importance of a really independent assessment of the technology. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Genetic Modification is our best approach to achieve an independent judgement of gene technology, considering the best interests of all New Zealanders.

"The potential [of genetic engineering] is only limited by our imagination," stated Brian Jordan, director Nutrition and Health Institute at Massey University. The imagination of the speakers appeared at times unlimited indeed. Genetic modification techniques will save the world, we are being told. Food for the future, cures for diseases, better and tastier food, protection of the environment, economic gains - the list is long and varied.

Some participants and members of the public, such as NZ Green Party MP Sue Kedgley and Anglican Bishop of Wellington, Rt Rev Tom Brown, called for caution, mentioning dangers and untested assumptions about safety and benefits.

Most participants seemed to believe that gene technology is the most important science of this century. I have a different opinion. I think "sustainability" - that is, structuring society in such a way that it can continue for a long time - is fundamental. Even if GE would lead to some of the potential benefits, the Earth is still finite.

In a finite world economic growth, including the growth science of gene technology, is suicidal. At the present course and speed of growth, development and depletion, we are lucky if we reach the middle of this century. Societal collapse threatens because of overpopulation, over-consumption, climate change, toxification or resource depletion, or any combination of environmental factors.

Genetic engineering is part of the growth paradigm leading us into an ecological nightmare. We should ground ourselves in sustainability - then proceed with caution.

Helmut E. Lubbers,
BE MSocSc DipEcol, trustee

ecoglobe - ecology discovery foundation New Zealand (charitable trust)
P. O. Box 24184 Wellington
tel. 04 - 3843269, fax 04 - 3898922
email: welcome@ecoglobe.org.nz
internet: http://www.ecoglobe.org.nz

** This material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. ** Feedback to: <welcome@ecoglobe.org.nz>