Gene editing technology enabled changes to genetic material to be made in a simpler and more precise manner than older-style genetic modification.
The widely heralded technology was credited with the ability to bring advances in human health, animal and plant production and pest control.
The society released material including fact sheets, infographics and a video to explain the technology to a wider audience and was convening a multi-disciplinary committee of leading experts to consider gene editing implications.
Professor Barry Scott, co-chair of the panel and professor of molecular genetics at Massey University, said the time was right for a review not only of the technology’s application in NZ but also of the regulations used to govern genetically modified organisms in NZ.
At present gene editing was captured under existing Environmental Protection Authority regulations.
A High Court ruling in 2014 against Scion’s efforts to use the technology for genetically modified pine trees ensured the technology remained captured by legislation that was now 15 years old.
But Scott said the technology had advanced significantly in that time and NZ now had the irony of old technologies being exempt from the legislation while the new technology was stymied by being included in it.
Technology using chemicals or radiation to modify plants is exempt from the EPA regulations but is commonly used to develop and modify new strains for germplasm.
“This is a vastly superior technology that is far more precise, delivering only the modification being sought rather than a number of other mutations that also arise with the other technologies.”
Scott was careful to note the society’s role was not to endorse or detract from scientific technology like gene editing.
“We just want to lay it all out in terms of where the science is at, the risks behind it and the economic costs and benefits of both using or not using it along with the legality and ethics of it.”
It was a technology advancing very rapidly overseas, particularly in the area of human health.
“Already they are being used to make immune cells attack cancer cells and to create more hardy and productive animals and plants much faster than conventional agricultural selection has allowed.”
He was uncertain whether the EPA had any review of the legislation under way.
“But they are well aware of the deficiencies in the current regulations.”
The Australians were also advancing their considerations of the technology, with the Australian Academy of Science pushing to have the technology debated and reviewed.
Scott said the precision of the editing technology meant it was becoming difficult to distinguish between genetic changes caused by gene editing, conventional breeding or natural mutation, making it a difficult technology to regulate under current rules.
MORE:
to visit the Society’s resources on gene editing visit: http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/gene-editing
