Professor warns against tampering with environment

By YOKE HAR LEE

What common trait is there between a big bang stockmarket crash and a genetically modified organism?

Peter Wills, an associate professor at the University of Auckland, says they both show the Complexity Theory at work.

Proponents of this theory claim that citizens of the complexity world act freely and randomly in a complex yet orderly manner.

Stockmarket meltdowns are rare and random, yet there is a pattern. The same observation can be made of the eco-system, which is complex yet random and free.

In the United States, complexity theory scientists are building algorithms based on what they observe in molecules.

Professor Wills' research is into genetic coding, where the Complexity Theory is at work.

Which is why he does not like tampering with the environment and why he campaigns against genetically modified organisms being released.

To him, science does not know the full picture - how microscopic details of a molecule relate to the evolving ecosystem. Translate that into global companies producing large-scale crops using genetically modified seeds and who can predict its effect, say, a millennium away.

The issue for Professor Wills is simply this: "Society has to decide how it weighs the potential benefits against the probability of potential harm."

His concern has led him to make submissions to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma), to campaign against the release of genetically modified organisms.

He has, he says, been making known his views since 1987 but not many have heard him.

The 47-year-old theoretical biologist, who lectures in the physics department of the university, has no problems with genetic engineering experiments done in the laboratory.

Professor Wills' views represent an important debate, says Dr William Rolleston, interim chairman of the Life Sciences Network, which is helping to promote public debate about genetic modification.

The organisation represents industry keen on promoting safe and ethical use of biotechnology.

Dr Rolleston says technology, regardless of whether it is computers, genetic engineering or selective breeding, will have an impact far into the future.

"In the natural environment, for example, random changes, positive or negative, occur all the time. We know less about these effects than we do about the narrow changes in altered genes," Dr Rolleston says.

Regulations to research genetic modification fall under the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act.

Erma dealt with about 27 applications, including 23 for genetic modification, in its first year.

Professor Wills wants the act modified so that it can take into account the values debate.

He has the highest respect for Erma, which he says offers a fair and transparent process.

His problem is this: those making submissions against genetic modification experiments are asked to raise their objections based on the perceived scientific and technical risks.

Fine, except the debate is not solely about science and risks. It is as much a debate about values - our ethics and morals. And except for the Maori view, the broader community's values are not being accounted for, Professor Wills says.

"We have ended up in a situation without having a debate about values. I have been openly critical of processes since 1987 and before.

"In the end, we end up with this legislation, which is not based on any real knowledge of community values. The way it is written reflects the attitude of the early 90s, when the public knew nothing about this.

"Except for the Maori input, they don't examine the values that go in the weighing of the risks.

"So when you ... make a submission objecting to something, they say, give us some science. The point is, we already have the science there laid out in front of us. But what weight do you give to different aspects and why do you give that weight?"

Erma chief executive Dr Bas Walker says the legislation does provide room to reflect the values debate and takes into account the environment in the future.

He believes there is growing awareness of genetic engineering and rising concerns.

"The previous Government spent three to four years debating that in Parliament so there was a long history of debate. Certainly the politicians passing the act felt all of those issues have been raised.

"What has happened since is people have discovered genetic engineering is an issue and people are more conscious of it.

"If that happens - and I am speaking personally now - you do reach a point where we need to say, 'there is a lot of concern in the society.

"We need to stop and take stock and decide whether the framework we are working to is the framework to accommodate what appears to be the situation'."