The government’s recently announced plan to end New Zealand’s effective ban on the use of gene technologies outside the laboratory has reignited debate about this historically contested topic.
While the government aims to pass legislation and introduce a gene tech regulator before 2026, opposition parties want broad conversations with New Zealanders to gauge their opinions.
As our research shows, such conversations are complex. They must include a diverse range of people because discussions about gene technology bring strong reactions based on people’s values and beliefs.
We found this to be especially pointed when talking about the use of these technologies in conservation, environmental protection and food.
But participants valued the opportunity to have open conversations and to discuss potential scenarios when provided with clear and accessible information. Our research gives insights into what safe and responsible environmental genetic innovation means for New Zealanders.
Genetic innovation isn’t only a technology issue
Our research was conducted over 18 months before the government’s announcement and supported by the now defunded Biological Heritage National Science Challenge. It was carried out in two streams. The Māori Biodiversity Network Te Tira Whakamātaki engaged with Māori thought leaders, while social scientists engaged with the wider public and interest groups.
Both streams used processes that enabled participants to deliberate in groups about specific environmental contexts where genetic tools could be applied. We considered a range of technologies, from gene editing to gene silencing, and a range of possible uses.
Many participants saw the potential of gene technologies. However, deliberations did not result in simple yes or no responses, nor was people’s decision-making primarily focused on the technologies. Instead, it was careful, considered, contextual and connected to personal values.
Public participants were presented with scenarios that included chromosomal changes (reducing wilding pines and eradicating rats) and scenarios using gene silencing that does not alter chromosomal DNA (management of the plant pathogen myrtle rust and the bee parasite varroa mite). But they did not simply favour the latter. Instead, the scenario context was a significant driver in the deliberations.
The use of gene silencing to control the varroa mite raised considerable concerns about human health because of the connection to honey production and food consumption. Genetic engineering for myrtle rust was greeted more favourably due to a dislike of the fungicides used currently.
When presented with a scenario to make kūmara more resistant to insects, Māori participants strongly opposed any modification. They were cautiously more supportive of gene technologies used on invasive rather than native species, but only with strong regulation.
Participants in the public stream were generally more supportive of gene technologies to manage plants compared with animals. But people’s decisions were affected by their acceptance of the problem.
While rats were perceived as a significant ecological threat, this was not always the case for wilding pines. Some people thought of them as an economic opportunity or environmental benefit to offset carbon emissions.
For Māori, whakapapa (genealogy) and tikanga (customs) formed the core of any discussion about genetic technologies. The potential for unforeseen consequences required tikanga-based processes to guide discussions, although this did not necessarily guarantee acceptance of use.
Māori participants preferred processes rooted in local tikanga that have successfully guided decision making for generations. Such processes needed significant resourcing into education about tools and the inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in any regulations proposed by the Crown.
High levels of caution
Participants in both streams openly discussed inherent risks and unknowns of gene technologies. Public participants saw the technologies’ potential to address the challenges of current environmental management, such as animal welfare concerns around toxins used in predator control.
However, they sought high levels of regulation and oversight, especially where there are significant unknowns and ethical concerns. In all contexts, people sought more and continuous research, particularly in contained environments, to monitor and evaluate the impacts of genetic technology.
The further away and more uncertain the technology was, the more regulation mattered. Participants sought considerable controls, regulation and governance throughout the entire cycle of development. Many public participants also wanted Māori representation at all levels of governance.
Who do people trust?
Among public participants, there was widespread trust in the methods of science. But when it came to institutions and specific scientists, trust became more nuanced. In communities where trust was low, complex science became contested science.
A survey undertaken by Te Tira Whakamātaki found Māori trusted scientists the most to provide information about genetic tools, followed closely by iwi leaders or authorities. Elected officials and the media were trusted the least.
Public participants expressed concern about the influence of commercial interests on science innovation and the governance of technologies. There was widespread concern over who might own and control the technologies.
People sought more information about gene technologies to come to an informed view. They wanted science organisations engaging in genetic research to be more visible and transparent.
Scientists and policymakers need to understand that this request for more information is not about educating the community towards a pre-determined outcome. It is about undertaking innovation responsibly. This means allowing the broader community to have a say in decision making and a responsible approach to innovation as technologies are developed.
Our research demonstrates that discussions about the liberalisation of rules governing genetic technology in New Zealand are complex. However, they need not be marked by conflict, if people’s views and values are genuinely considered.
The authors received funding for this work from the now defunded Biological Heritage National Science Challenge.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
