Dr David Penman, who was co-chair on the society’s investigating panel, told delegates at this year’s gene editing forum there was too much focus on the processes behind gene engineering (GE), rather than taking an outcome-based approach to what it could deliver.
“The regulation needs to be proportionate to the risk. For example, mutagenesis, using radiation to find gene mutations is not genetic engineering, but targeted gene editing is,” he said.
He says there also remained an enormous diversity of acts that scientists and researchers have to pick through when contemplating such technology.
The Royal Society panel had avoided releasing a “door stopper” of a report on its recommendations, instead delivering a series of reports looking at different areas of society where GE could be applied.
In the primary sector, the panel had highlighted some areas it could be beneficially applied.
This included gene editing pine trees to be sterile, eliminating wilding pine issues.
Another example was using GE to modify rye grass fungi to maintain the chemicals that deter pest attack, while reducing chemicals that are harmful to livestock, causing “ryegrass staggers.”
Penman says the challenge to detect if an organism was gene edited had also not been addressed, and often the mutations were not detectable.
“We need a definition to cover natural mutations through to synthetic organisms,” he said.
It has been 20 years since the Royal Commission was convened to examine genetic engineering, and the panel had concluded it was time for an overhaul of those regulations, with an urgent need for wider discussion across all NZ communities.
“We learnt that transgenics were still a fear, despite CRISPR being quite different,” he said.
CRISPR gene editing technology allows for the precise adjustment of a gene’s particular trait. This year’s Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded to the discoverers of the CRIPSR technology, lauded as being the means to fast-track breeding and evolution.
“We found younger people have a greater willingness to consider the risks and benefits of the technology. We engaged with a number of school groups that asked very considered questions,” he said.
Politicians spoken to by the panel were cognisant of the risks and that the legislation was no longer fit for purpose. While Maori spoken to were mixed in their take on the technology, with many favouring its use in health care, and the primary sector iwi were also aware of the value the technology could deliver.
Over a year later, Penman says there was still a need for someone to grasp the issue and avoid saying it was too politically untenable.
He also advised to engage early with policy specialists, and particularly with a younger generation who would form future policy. However, he also wondered where leadership on the issue was going to come from to ignite a meaningful conversation about GE’s place in the primary sector.
Long-time GE advocate Dr William Rolleston also addressed delegates.
The chair of Life Sciences Network said GE has become caught in a quagmire of precautionary regulations, with little progress made in 20 years.
But pointing to the release of four approved treatments that have been developed through GE, he maintains in NZ we have already “lost our GE virginity with barely a whimper.”
“Almost all Australian states have lifted their GE moratoriums,” he said.
This includes mainland South Australia, which now allows farmers there to buy and grow genetically modified seeds and crops. The lifting comes 15 years after the ban came into place at an estimated cost of lost earnings to farmers in the state of about A$33 million.
Rolleston says our covid success has come because NZ has followed science, and he urged scientists to lead that journey for GE.
