Genetic modification is back on the political agenda in Aotearoa New Zealand. The issue may not be as hotly contentious as it once was, but big questions remain about the way forward.
This article has been republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons licence CC BY-ND 4.0 and is written by Sylvia Nissen (Senior Lecturer in Environmental Policy, Lincoln University). It was originally titled ‘NZ’s gene technology reform carries benefits and risks – a truly independent regulator will be vital’.
Pieces in the gene technology puzzle
There are multiple components in play regarding the use of genetic technologies. Cultural and societal considerations sit alongside scientific and technological considerations.
Image sourced from Pixabay.
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 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”.
An example of ethics dumping
In 1980, an American scientist conducted a gene technology experiment outside of the country where he was working, to circumnavigate the USA regulations at that time. He transferred rDNA into the bone marrow cells of two patients with hereditary blood disorders.
The experiment did not have approval from his USA university, and it was in direct opposition to National Institute of Health gene therapy guidelines.
There was further concern that he’d done limited animal trials on mice that were unsuccessful.
Learn more here.
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.
Nature of science and society
This The Conversation article was published in February 2025, shortly before the closing date for public submissions on the Gene Technology Bill. In Aotearoa New Zealand, a bill is a proposal to make a new law or to change an existing one. Only Parliament can pass a bill, and each bill goes through several stages. At the time of publication on the Science Learning Hub, the Gene Technology Bill was in the early stages of progress with the select committee.
The Gene Technology Bill and this The Conversation article are examples of the nature of science and society. We have the scientific knowledge and capability to use genetic modification technologies. However, the acceptance and use of these technologies is influenced and regulated by social constructs – including legislation.
Related content
Socio-scientific issues provide excellent opportunities for class discussions and learning. There is a wide range of content on the Hub to support the teaching and learning of socio-scientific issues:
- The Ethics and genetically modified foods class case study provides an example of introducing ethical thinking into the classroom to explore a controversial issue in science.
- Explore the ethics of modifying cows with human genes.
- The Ethics thinking toolkit provides you and your students with a framework for unpacking these complex issues.
Bioethics – introduction has suggested pathways for introducing bioethics.
RNA interference is a biotechnology tool that temporarily silences a gene by using a synthetic RNA sequence to prevent translation. It’s a type of genetic modification that may help with pest control. RNA interference – a context for learning provides curriculum information and pedagogical insights.
Explore te ao Māori considerations of novel pest control tools – like RNAi. This resource provides explanations of the key science concepts that underpin the structure and function of genes, gene editing and social considerations of genetic tools. It also includes te ao Māori concepts to consider when investigating genetic tools and technologies.
These Hub resources provide background knowledge on genetics and cells.
Useful professional learning and development articles include:
Activity ideas
The ethics and transgenics activity supports student learning through role-play.
In RNAi – making science-informed responses students use a variety of resources to consider personal, societal and science perspectives and make a science-informed response to the use of RNAi as a means of pest control.
Useful links
To understand current genetic modification regulations in New Zealand read the Ministry for the Environment report, Genetic Modification: the New Zealand Approach.
Take a look at these media articles that explore different perspectives on changing genetic modification regulations:
- Has the time come for genetic modification?
- New Zealand’s three-decade ban on genetic modification explained
- Let’s cut the crap on gene technology
- GMO-free NZ set to make ‘radical’ reset on gene technology – expert
Explore some of the possible benefits of gene editing technology:
- Agriculture
- Health
- Conservation
- Climate change
- Weaving cultural authority into gene-drives targeting wasps
Before genetic engineering, insulin for people with diabetes was produced from pigs and other animals. Today, insulin is produced using recombinant DNA technology in genetically modified microorganisms, such as bacteria (Escherichia coli) or yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Genetically modified insulin is approved for use in New Zealand.
Read about ‘who carries the risk?’ in CRISPR Democracy: Gene Editing and the Need for Inclusive Deliberation, and ‘hard to anticipate implications’ in Playing with genes: The good, the bad and the ugly and Conservation demands safe gene drives.
The article CRISPR: Science can’t solve it argues that democratically weighing up the benefits and risks of gene editing and artificial intelligence is a political endeavour, not an academic one.
Australia has one gene technology regulator as per the Gene Technology Act 2000. The Office of the gene technology regulator is completely independent. Learn more in Gene technology regulation in Australia.
See an example of military funding of gene technology in US military agency invests $100m in genetic extinction technologies.
Learn more about ‘ethics dumping’ where wealthy countries carry out experiments in poorer countries to circumnavigate regulations or opposition in their own country.
The article Empowering Indigenous Knowledge in Deliberations on Gene Editing in the Wild suggests ways to address power imbalances around decisions about genetically engineered organisms being released into the wild.
Other research mentioned in the original article includes these paywalled articles: Islands as Laboratories: Indigenous Knowledge and Gene Drives in the Pacific and Editing nature: Local roots of global governance.
Read more in these The Conversation articles:
Acknowledgement
This article was written by Sylvia Nissen (Senior Lecturer in Environmental Policy, Lincoln University). The article was originally published in The Conversation, 3 February 2025.
Read the original article.
