Scientists grilled on GE ethics

Experimenting on animals is justified by the beneficial ends for humans, AgResearch programme leader Phil L'Huillier told the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification yesterday.

The crown research institute's team of experts were pressed repeatedly on ethical issues by Green MP Sue Kedgley after they had made their submission to the commission in Wellington yesterday.

Dr L'Huillier said animal ethics laws were followed and adhered to in all experimental work.

He defended experiments using the so-called "inactive" gene present in the strongly muscled Belgian Blue cattle, hoping to produce leaner meat in other breeds.

He also defended inducing heart failure in sheep, in research aimed at preventing human heart failure.

"Do you think that's cruel?" Ms Kedgley asked.

"It's my personal view it's appropriate to study because of the benefits it may have when we apply it to human health," Dr L'Huillier replied.

To questioning from Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, AgResearch biosecurity science leader Stephen Goldson conceded that not enough was known about gene transfer across plant species.

"That's why we're cranking up research."

AgResearch's submission argued that genetic technology had the potential to lift New Zealand's economic performance and quality of life.

It was imperative that the country became a developer, not just a user of imported genetic technologies, it said.

Severe restrictions could also violate trade agreements, including Closer Economic Relations with Australia.

Carter Holt Harvey and Fletcher Challenge Forests told the royal commission that while the world's native forests were declining, demand for wood and paper products was increasing.

Improvements through genetics were expected to help to meet the demand.

Any risk would be easily managed by companies through a regulatory system relying on "comprehensive risk assessments."

- NZPA

Herald Online feature: the GE debate

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary