Dialogue: Let's stop vilifying scientists

JON HICKFORD* says a crackdown on scientists involved in genetic engineering experiments pays no heed to the low risk involved in much of the work.

Reports of 196 apparently "illegal" examples of genetic engineering experiments, and the threat of $500,000 fines for those caught doing unregistered work, suggests we must have some wanton criminals parading as scientists in New Zealand.

That is what you would think if you were naive enough to take at face-value the statements of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. New Zealanders, however, should be a little more discerning in this matter.

Bas Walker, the authority chief executive, admitted the large majority of genetic engineering work undertaken was "low-risk" activity. It was "not a significant risk," he said.

How risky is this genetic engineering work? Is it as risky as driving a car, having a baby or eating lunch?

Risk can be calculated for genetic engineering work. To understand this calculation, you need to have some understanding of the commonly used experimental techniques.

The most common technique involves the modification of plasmids in laboratory strains of bacteria. Plasmids are small circular pieces of DNA that can be introduced into bacteria, mainly for the purposes of understanding what the DNA in the plasmid does. Often plasmids carry antibiotic resistance genes to mark their presence in a bacterium (bacteria containing the plasmid are resistant to an antibiotic).

These procedures have been in use for more than 25 years with no reported harmful consequences. They underpin a considerable amount of modern genetic or molecular biological research and are not responsible for the spread of antibiotic resistance, as some believe.

But any risk is unacceptable, some might think.

As an example of the calculations, the risk of antibiotic resistance spreading to intestinal bacteria resident in humans is calculated at one in a trillion. This would make your intestinal bacteria resistant to a single antibiotic (science has already demonstrated normal intestinal bacteria are resistant to many antibiotics). It would not kill you.

What is more, the procedures are used by scientists "in containment." This includes using deliberately selected and debilitated bacteria that are incapable of colonising the human intestine.

If this still sounds like an out-of-touch scientific argument, let's put it in straightforward terms. It is estimated that up to a third of senior biology classes in the United States use the same techniques that are now heavily regulated in New Zealand and for which our scientists are being vilified.

If this were dangerous stuff, why would Americans be so happy to gamble with the lives of their young? The reason is that the risks are negligible, and you are far more likely to be killed or injured in a motor vehicle accident, by giving birth or by eating your lunch.

In the latter case it is surprising how many New Zealanders choke to death each year. If you were to apply the authority's interpretation of the necessary risk management, we would all need to be registered to be allowed to eat and each meal would require a 15-page description of its content and the likely benefits of its consumption. You also would have to pay $300 in fees.

The authority will no doubt declare that it is merely enforcing the law. The law in question is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The legislation is designed to protect New Zealanders but, unfortunately, laws can be interpreted in many ways, and the interpretation by the authority that sees scientists being branded as criminals for not registering activities which were, until two years ago, legal, is irresponsible.

The authority has raised public anxiety unnecessarily. By failing to publicly define the true risk of these technologies, it has not served the public interest. This could potentially be costly to basic scientific and medical research, education, agriculture and the environment.

The "low-risk" technology is a basic research tool used to understand the function of genes. Its application is diverse, spanning basic research in human genetic disorders to understanding the basis of resistance to footrot in sheep.

It is not undertaken for the direct purpose of producing new organisms, but is instead an analytical procedure.

Excessive regulation of its use is a hindrance and a cost to scientific and medical research endeavour in New Zealand, an outcome which few people would desire.

The suggestion by the authority of greater policing of the containment facilities where this work takes place would be a waste of taxpayers' money. The compliance costs and time required to comply make projects difficult to pursue, and sometimes impossible.

Gene technologies undeniably offer huge potential. They must be taught in schools, polytechnics and universities. But the authority's actions threaten the teaching of this material.

Excessive regulation would severely restrict teaching activities and undermine any aspirations this country has through initiatives such as Bright Futures.

In light of the evidence of unwanted snakes and bee mites entering New Zealand, the effort that the authority and other agencies are putting into non-genetic engineering biosecurity is insufficient.

The authority should focus on issues that pose tangible risks, rather than low-risk examples of gene technology. A moratorium should be placed on the excessive enforcement of the regulations until the royal commission on genetic engineering makes its recommendations.

Most importantly, I wish the authority would stop vilifying scientists. Good scientists are in short supply already in this country and suggesting they might be criminals does not help anyone.

* Jon Hickford is a senior lecturer in biochemistry at Lincoln University.

GE DEBATE - A Herald series

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary

GE discussion forum