Biotech industry: Red tape is holding NZ back

By DANIEL RIORDAN

The local biotechnology industry will fall behind the rest of the world until uncertainties and overbearing Government regulations for genetic modification are tackled, leading industry figures said yesterday.

They said it was ironic that biotechnology was one of three sectors chosen by the Government last month - with information and communication technology and "creative industries" - as the focus for Crown investment.

A two-day conference in Auckland heard that, although the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification had reported back last October, the shadow of regulation still loomed.

AgResearch chief executive Keith Steele said his company, which spends $90 million a year on research and development (10 per cent of it directly related to GM), had been approached last year by a New York venture capital firm looking to invest in its work with dairy cattle.

But the firm took its money to China when it became obvious approval from the New Zealand Government's Environmental Risk Management Authority would take too long.

Last month Fonterra said it had signed a $60 million contract to research genetic modification in the dairy industry, but the high cost of regulations may force it to cancel the deal.

Fonterra is making submissions on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms) Amendment Bill, which implements the tight regulatory system recommended by the commission.

Biotech leaders have criticised the bill, saying it goes beyond what the commission was advocating in restricting GM-based research.

Professor Peter Gluckman, a director of the Liggins Institute at Auckland University and chief scientific officer of brain research company Neuronz, said start-up companies in particular were suffering from the regulatory maze.

Investors were being frightened away by the increasing amount of time and money it was taking to reach key performance targets.

"A month's delay might be 10 per cent of a start-up company's available funds," he said.

Patent laws were also a big problem and he was concerned at the likelihood of increasing threats from the anti-GM lobby of a personal nature and eco-terrorism.

"Brave political leadership is needed to demonstrate that biotech is a core part of New Zealand's future," Gluckman said.

"We need to address all these issues or the industry will be in difficulties. It won't have a future."

Genesis Research & Development chief executive Jim Watson said animal ethics guidelines were ridiculous.

He said it took 5 1/2 months to get permission to do an animal experiment lasting two weeks.

John Forman, executive director of the Organisation for Rare Disorders, said the industry's battle would be wide-ranging, and would be fought on facts and emotion.

"Many rare diseases won't be solved without advances in biotech," he said.

"We need to win the hearts and minds of society at large, and the politicians.

"That's the area of greatest risk to our achievements."

Francis Wevers, executive director of the Life Sciences Network, said polls showed that nearly half of New Zealanders believed they did not have enough information to make educated decisions.

"These are the people politicians look to when they make their decisions," he said.

Steele said the underlying problem was the New Zealand psyche.

"When we facilitate we tend to make it as hard as possible.

"In New Zealand, if someone fails at business, they're shot. Biotech is a high-risk business; legislation is low-risk. The two don't mix."

He said New Zealand had too much bureaucracy for its size, and a simple experiment might require dealing with 10 agencies or bodies.

"Our staff are battle-weary."

Wevers said the industry's real test could come after this year's general election, with the possibility that the anti-GM Green Party might increase its vote and gain control of key ministries.

nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary