Editorial: Reprieve for cows bearing MS hope

Of all the potential benefits of genetic research, probably none is as tantalising as those in medicine.

Take multiple sclerosis, the neurological condition which affects coordination. The search for a cure has long defied scientific toil. However, a new direction of hope has opened with an experiment at the Ruakura Research Centre which aims to produce proteins that could improve treatment of the condition. No wonder New Zealand's 3500 multiple sclerosis sufferers are among those most angered by a High Court ruling that could mean the work cannot continue.

The court has set aside a decision of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to approve the experiment. The authority's decision has been invalidated for what seems to be a technicality. The ruling has little to do with the rights or wrongs of genetic engineering.

Obviously experiments involving the transplanting of genetic material, particularly across different species, must be carefully controlled. But inserting a synthetic version of a basic human protein into cattle foetuses as a medical experiment does not sound like imminent danger. The High Court merely found that the authority had failed to state the tests it applied in reaching its decision.

The Greens have created a crisis out of the ruling. They want the 60 cows impregnated with the genetically modified foetuses to be slaughtered. It would, said party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, be more humane to kill a pregnant cow than to wait until it gave birth and then kill mother and baby. Never mind that the cows - even if not, according to the Greens, their calves - represent no danger.

For good measure, the Greens have thrown in a conspiracy theory; that the Ruakura experiment is really all about perfecting genetic techniques so that the dairy industry can make designer milks. Even if that were correct, would that be so bad, especially if an effective treatment for multiple sclerosis was a by-product? Contrary to the belief of many environmentalists, the benefits of genetic engineering will not flow exclusively to Monsanto or other multinationals.

Effectively, the Greens are implacably opposed to all genetic research. They subscribe to the "precautionary principle," which has acquired a certain academic respectability in recent years. It is time it was challenged. Essentially the principle says, "Unless we can be convinced nothing can go wrong, nothing should be done."

If the world were run by that principle, no risk would be taken, no progress would be possible. To most people, "precaution" means proceed with care. It is time the ordinary meaning was restored to the word when it is used in environmental debate. Let us hope the commission of inquiry into genetic engineering will apply the term properly in its report.

At Ruakura, the state agency AgResearch has made an investment of two and a half years' research into the experiment. Even in a world grappling with the issues raised by genetic engineering, the termination of the project could dent New Zealand's increasingly fragile reputation as a research centre.

A fortnight's reprieve gives hope that AgResearch will be able to continue the experiment while the risk management authority, as a matter of urgency, corrects the deficiency in its decision. The High Court will be asked to sanction that course. If, however, the court continues to find fault, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms law will have to be amended. Fortunately, the Government seems committed to such action. The Environment Minister recognises that innovation should not be unnecessarily restricted.

It would help, of course, if AgResearch were prepared to be more open about its work. Denying the Herald a look at the pregnant cows for unspecified security reasons does not help to allay public unease. Secrecy overseas is a reason scientists are now on the back foot defending genetic research.

Scientists should be open and enthusiastic about the potential, and the risks, of genetic research. There is plenty to enthuse over in an experiment that could give the dairy industry a technological and economic advantage, and provide the cure for a debilitating illness. They need to demonstrate that halting such a project on a technicality would be pandering to the irrational.