NZ’s gene technology reform carries benefits and risks – a truly independent regulator will be vital

Genetic modification is back on the political agenda in New Zealand. The issue may not be as hotly contentious as it once was, but big questions remain about the way forward.

Last year, the National-led coalition government signalled its intent to reform genetic modification laws to provide more “enabling” and “modern” regulation. The subsequent gene technology bill was introduced in December and is currently before select committee.

The bill comes on the back of growing calls for New Zealand’s regulatory frameworks to become less restrictive.

One of the arguments often made is that the current system, in place since the 1990s, is holding back gene technology research by restricting it largely to laboratory-based experiments. By this account, New Zealand is falling behind in knowledge and expertise, while missing out on the benefits of these technologies.

Those benefits are said to span a wide range of areas, including agriculture, health, conservation and climate change.

There are some applications of genetic modification that have potential long-term public benefit and few or no alternatives. These includes the control of invasive wasps or the production of insulin. But plenty of challenges remain for many emerging forms of gene technology, not least the technical complexities.

There are also difficult questions that must be asked. Who benefits and who carries the risks of harm? What might be other hard-to-anticipate implications, spanning health, social, cultural, ethical, environmental, economic and trade concerns?

In conservation, for instance, questions need to be asked about how interventions might spread or interact with ecosystems that are already under strain or beyond our shores.

Genetic modification is a controversial political topic for good reason. As with many other technologies, the devil is in the detail. We should not fall for overly simple narratives that it is all about benefits, with little to no risk. Context matters, as does robust and responsible governance.

A not-so-independent regulator

It is important to take a close look at how decisions about genetic modification might be made under the proposed bill.

The suggested model is loosely based on Australia’s approach of a single gene technology regulator, which has been in place for two decades and is widely considered to be successful.

But there are crucial – and troubling – differences between the Australian model and what is proposed for New Zealand.

In Australia, the regulator is fully independent. The law is clear: the regulator “is not subject to direction from anyone” in making decisions about genetic modification.

The regulator has a charter which frames decisions, an office and biosafety committees that support their work, and they report to parliament as a whole (not just the government of the day).

In contrast, the proposed New Zealand bill claims the regulator is independent, but also says they are “subject to general policy directions given by the minister”.

It is worth looking deeper into what this means. The bill’s coversheet explains:

Government needs a mechanism to intervene if the regulator acts contrary to its policy objectives.

These objectives would be provided through general policy directions and would “ensure the regulator acts consistently with reform objectives”, including by changing risk tolerance.

Although a minister cannot intervene in decisions about specific applications, they would have the ability to change the parameters of the regulator’s decisions, with no apparent requirements for wider consultation.

This is not true independence by any stretch of the imagination – and a long way from the Australian approach.

A note of caution

If a minister is able to change the parameters of a regulator’s decisions at will, it is important to consider what doors might be opened that we may wish, in retrospect, remained shut.

For example, the recently released first report of the Science System Advisory Group calls for “attracting multinational corporations to undertake research and development in New Zealand”. The report alludes to genetic modification research as a key area to expand.

Put this together with the decision-making model proposed under the bill. It is not a stretch to see how a regulator, who was subject to the general policy direction of a minister, could be provided with a scope that facilitated multinational genetic modification research in New Zealand.

There is ample reason to be cautious of opening New Zealand to this. Numerous international scholars have highlighted that genetic modification research is “firmly dominated” by elite US-based or European science teams.

It is also increasingly funded by private philanthropists, corporations and the military, who often implement their experiments in distant countries or islands with relatively minimal regulation.

This practice has been given a specific term: “ethics dumping”.

Science might progress, but local communities are left with the unpredictable and unintended consequences of these experiments, usually without meaningful prior consultation.

It is therefore important that any changes to New Zealand’s genetic modification regulation ensure truly independent decision-making. There can be benefits of these technologies, but a system that can be changed at short notice to suit the government of the day could set the scene for more harm than good.

The devil really is in the detail. To have responsible governance, a few changes in the new law will make a significant difference.

Sylvia Nissen receives funding as a researcher on the MBIE Endeavour-funded project ‘Whatu raranga o nga koiora: Weaving cultural authority into gene-drives targeting wasps’.