GE workers pay price of commercial pressures

WELLINGTON - Some crown research institutes appear to be gagging scientists from speaking publicly about their genetic engineering work, says a scientist.

Dr Lin Roberts, a consultant in sustainable land use, told the Wellington seminar on gene technology in New Zealand that there was a lack of freedom of speech in some institutes (CRIs).

She made the comment while answering questions about the need for expertise from scientists not directly involved in the genetic engineering applications discussed in public hearings held by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma).

The weekend seminar, held by Erma as part of its public awareness programme, included half a dozen speakers from crown companies.

Later, Dr Roberts said she perceived that at least one crown company, the Institute for Crop and Food Research, did not give its scientists the same freedom to publicly discuss their work as HortResearch gave its scientists.

She believed Crop and Food scientists had to have material vetted before it went public, and scientists were expected to toe the party line in commenting on genetic engineering work.

The approach varied from institute to institute, she said.

"But yes, I do think some of them take a line that staff shouldn't speak out against developments the CRI is involved in."

Dr Roberts said problems of commercialisation of publicly funded science extended to the type of science favoured by crown companies.

They tended not to put the same effort into lines of research that were unsuited to a potentially lucrative mass market.

The relatively small amount of money available tended to go to high-profile work in the technical aspects of genetic engineering rather than the less "sexy" but more important issues such as understanding the ecological systems in which engineered organisms would eventually be released.

Yet unless scientists could help society to find systems of sustainable land use, there would be no viable ecosystems in which the genetically engineered organisms could be used.

Dr Roberts also said there were likely to be changes to the Public Good Science Fund, which hands out $300 million of state money each year.

She was concerned that the nine crown institutes would capture most of the funds, leaving less money for independent scientists.

Another scientist at the seminar, Dr Hugh Campbell, said the fund appeared to overly focus on research that would lead to commercially viable products.

"I sometimes wonder whether we've mistaken public good research for corporate good research."

Dr Campbell questioned whether potentially rapid economic returns from genetic engineering were causing disproportionate investment in "gene jockeys."

- NZPA

GE DEBATE - A Herald series

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary

GE discussion forum