Bureaucratically modified science

By TIM WATKIN

John Fraser feels like a prisoner - fingers tapping and feet jiggling, waiting for the jail door to swing open.

As a professor in molecular biology, which, he says, "is essentially the ability to shuffle genes between organisms", Fraser has spent years captive to New Zealand's laws restricting the creation of new genetically modified organisms.

His quest to develop a non-harmful superantigen that could strengthen vaccines of any kind has been stymied.

He's far from the only scientist in this position, but his experiences at the often confusing cutting edge of genetic modification offer an insight into the GM debate and how it has affected scientists here.

At the end of July the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification's recommendations offered the hope of liberation and discovery. Fraser's scientific freedom, and that of his colleagues, seemed imminent.

Then came the rising voices of those campaigning for New Zealand to be GM-free; the voices of many New Zealanders who remain unconvinced of the commission's conclusions.

The debate revolves around attitudes to the unknown. Environmentalists and others arguing against the release of genetically modified organisms are concerned about a perceived lack of informed choice and the irreversible risk of worst-case scenarios. "What if ... " means potential catastrophe.

But the unknown has always been the bread and butter of scientists. It's their place of work, their path to the holy ground of evidence. If you never enter the unknown you will never know more. "What if ... " is merely an experimental means to an evidential end.

In recent weeks the protest action and political pressure have grown and many scientists are now nervous that that door to the unknown may remain closed, in part at least. There's concern that the moratorium on field releases may be extended again.

"I would be extremely disappointed if the Government turned on its tail," says Fraser. "Most of the colleagues I have would think twice about working in an environment that puts politics ahead of fair, scientific appraisal."

As an unrepentant advocate of his research, confident of science's indubitable right to explore and GM's ability to offer us wonderful things, Fraser is the kind of scientist who could attract significant flak from the GM-free lobby. He sees its failure to accept what he calls the reasoned and thorough report of the commission, for example, as nothing more than "social thuggery".

The curious thing about Fraser's case, however, is that his fight is not with opposing campaigners, but with the Government.

In the shifting sands of GM politics, where the lines between what is acceptable and what isn't often move, he remains onside with the anti-GM campaigners. Fraser has access to both "get out of jail free" cards available to scientists in the field - the organisms he creates and splices never leave the laboratory and their purpose is medical.

As Annette Cotter of Greenpeace says, the anti-GM lobby has never been opposed to all GM. "We draw the line at the lab door."

She says modification in the laboratory is contained and therefore safe, while the risks inherent in medical applications of GM are borne by the individuals who work with them and consume them and are not foisted on an unwilling society or the environment.

But Fraser believes drawing a line at the lab door is pointless. "We all work in the lab for greater things outside the lab. The whole point of the research is to move things on and achieve a wider release."

But that's an argument yet to be bridged. In the meantime, Fraser's in the happy position where his research seems to be acceptable to everyone. Everyone, that is, except the law-makers.

Much of his work has been held up since the 1996 introduction of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

The act, which governs the importation of and research into genetically modified organisms, has suffocated science in New Zealand, Fraser says, by placing a blanket restriction on creating such organisms.

"It made no distinction between the kind of work we do, which is basic science in a laboratory under carefully regulated conditions, versus those people who wanted to go and release organisms into the environment.

"I'm not against regulation where there's a genuine risk. What I found very difficult was that they were legislating against areas where I didn't think there were any real risks to the environment."

Under the act it is possible to make genetically modified organisms in the lab, but Government approval is required for each new one. Fraser says with a sigh that it has been a slow and impractical process.

"We had to oblige this legislation, making long-winded applications for every individual organism we wanted to create."

Dealing in medium-risk organisms, he had to apply to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) and it typically took a month to respond.

"And often they would send it back saying you haven't crossed this 't' or dotted this 'i', so not only was it a month, it was two months or three months. That to me was intolerable."

One application took nine months to be approved.

"Another issue is that the costs of getting approval were far and away over what we could possibly afford. I mean, our research grants don't stretch to funding $1000 or $1500 applications every time."

The act's demands, he continues, have hamstrung the research of his colleagues and graduate students. They have been discouraged and driven overseas while opportunities for medical advancements have gone begging.

"There have been occasions where we have basically given up because it was in the too-hard basket. That's a tragedy because it's not happening overseas."

Still, to many a layperson, checking out a whole new organism seems a reasonable, even essential, precaution. Creating a new chunk of life is a significant undertaking, isn't it?

"No, it's not," replies Fraser. "In molecular biology terms, making new organisms like bacteria - we do that every day. At any given moment on any given day around the world, there are two or three million organisms being made in laboratories. So although it does sound rather scary that a new organism is being created, those organisms are just bacteria on plates. And that's where they stay."

He says public fears of any and every genetically modified organism come from a lack of understanding.

"Organisms can be divided into two types - ones that frequently transfer genetic material between themselves and other organisms, and ones that can't. We would never work with ones that can. If you're making GMOs, the last thing you want is an organism that's going to go round having sex, basically, with other organisms."

The organisms Fraser wants to make and clone and modify are for the laboratory alone. The only home they will ever know will be a petri dish or a flask; the lab will be their universe.

"In terms of environmental risk, the organisms we work with have been proven over many, many years to be so sensitive that the only way they'll ever grow is when you feed them all these rich nutrients and there's no way they're going to get those conditions anywhere other than a lab.

"There has not been a single case in the history of molecular biology where these organisms have got out. There isn't a worst-case scenario."

Conversely, the best scenario is that Fraser's work could make a huge contribution to fight diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis and Aids. He studies microscopic but incredibly potent molecules called superantigens.

"We want to know why they're so potent and how they work so that we can take that potency and use it for therapeutic purposes."

Superantigens are produced by the bacteria that live within us to fend off our immune system's defences, and so are potentially harmful to us. There are 25 known varieties, but we don't necessarily carry every one of them.

Usually they co-exist with our immune system and, Fraser believes, actually do us good by stimulating our immune system and keeping it on its toes. But if the bacteria grow faster and more florid than is healthy - when we have strep throat, for example - "that's when they produce more superantigens and you go from a state where we live in symbiotic harmony to a state where ... these superantigens can often overload your immune system".

At worst, they can kill you. So why on earth would Fraser think that these wee nasties can actually help to heal us?

"We're looking at making modified versions of these superantigens that are no longer toxic, but can do some of the things they do very well, which may enhance vaccine development."

In essence, once stripped of their toxicity and added to any vaccine - say, for cancer or Aids - they could lend it their super-strength.

"They act as a booster pack. We think [that by] using superantigens you can enhance the immune response, so you can mount a more profound protective response."

Consider the therapeutic potential. Then consider the commercial potential. This research could lead not to just one more vaccine, but to an ingredient that could be part of every new vaccine. If Fraser's superantigens had fingers they would be tapping them with impatience, too.

"It would be wonderful if this research could be turned into something commercial within two to three years. There is that possibility," Fraser says. Then mumbling something about commercial sensitivity, he adds, "I can't say any more than that."

Whatever potential lies in his third-floor lab in a quiet corner of Auckland University's Medical School quadrant depends on the decision made on the ninth floor of the Beehive.

The commission's recommendations include changes to the HSNO act: applications to develop low- to medium-risk organisms could be done on a project basis rather than organism by organism; low-risk organisms, such as transgenic mice, could be imported into contained environments more quickly and simply; and compliance costs would be lowered.

Fraser can almost hear the door creaking open, can almost see the new pathways stretching ahead. But he knows the keys are still in the Government's hands and those hands may yet be bound by public opinion.

nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary