The destruction of genetically modified crops in this country is not only ethically bankrupt but invites further illegal action in retaliation, writes RICHARD RANDERSON*.
The sabotaging of genetically modified potatoes in a Lincoln research facility fails to meet ethical criteria of dissent.
Dissent is a well-established and essential element of any democracy,
but to be constructive it needs to fit within an ethical framework.
Where the breaking of the law is involved, four elements of such a framework are:
* There is a known danger or evil to be prevented.
* There are no other ways to prevent it.
* The evil is of such proportions as to warrant breaking the law.
* The overall good to be achieved exceeds any harm caused by the preventive action.
The fulfilling of these criteria is evident in the 1981 opposition to the Springbok rugby tour. The evil of the apartheid regime in South Africa was well-documented in the systemic poverty, oppression, imprisonment, torture and killing of the black majority.
Many efforts to end apartheid had been made by many nations over many years, but to no avail.
The extent of the evil was such as to warrant the largely non-violent resistance that occurred. While the resistance led to the injury of some police and protesters, and cost the country financially in terms of protection at rugby grounds, such costs were minimal compared with the huge human and economic costs of apartheid.
None of those four criteria applies to the use of genetic modification. The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification listened to many legitimate concerns and accepted there was the potential for danger to both people and ecosystems.
The key word is "potential". The evidence of scientists across the board was that we do not yet know enough to be sure.
We do not know enough, for example, about horizontal gene transfer in soils, and whether this is harmful or benign. We do not know enough about the long-term effect of crops that are Bt-modified for insect resistance.
There is clear potential for out-crossing between GM and non-GM crops, and the complex issues of co-existence require detailed investigation.
In the face of such gaps in our knowledge there are two options: find the answers before any decisions are made (as the commission recommended), or stop research so as to prevent the finding of answers. The Lincoln saboteurs chose the second option.
If we now measure that sabotage against the four criteria for law-breaking dissent, we find: neither the first nor the third criterion is met in a situation in which we do not yet know if a danger actually exists and where there is no plan for an open GM release.
With regard to the second criterion, there are many alternatives to law-breaking. Research in carefully protected facilities, such as the potato project at Lincoln, is seeking answers to the many questions where knowledge is not yet adequate.
Regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Risk Management Authority must conform to far-ranging and robust criteria in determining the safety or otherwise of any GM organism. Applications that do not meet safety and other standards will not be approved.
A two-year moratorium is in place pending research findings. This does not mean that at the end of two years the GM floodgates will open. It means that no genetically modified organism will be released before that time, and only then if it meets rigorous safety standards.
The moratorium also allows time for monitoring of market trends. New Zealand needs to know whether consumer resistance to GM products will strengthen or diminish, in order to determine effective economic strategies.
Other alternatives to law-breaking exist in the wide-ranging public debate about GM. The strength of that debate has implications for this year's general election and consequent political decisions.
The new Bioethics Council will also provide a forum for the examination of complex ethical concerns such as transgenics (for example, human genes transferred to a cow).
On the fourth criterion, the case for GM sabotage comes seriously unstuck, for the damage from this action far exceeds any potential for good.
The sabotage has a serious personal dimension insofar as it destroys three years of committed research by Dr Margy Gilpin in a fully contained facility and under strict regulation. We do well to reflect on our reaction to the destruction of three years of our own endeavour.
Such destruction has a negative effect on the supply of competent scientists and research funding. As a small nation we need research leading to creative innovation from which we all benefit.
Nor do acts of sabotage contribute to informed public debate. The opposite, in fact, is the case. Law-breaking in a situation of unproven danger, and when many other options exist, invites retaliatory illegal action.
During its hearings the commission was often aware of the potential for the illegal importing and release of GM organisms. The ease with which the rabbit calicivirus was smuggled in is an example of the way in which regulations might be breached.
The fact that GM research now takes place in clearly marked and highly protected facilities is an expression of the precautionary principle adopted. The downside of such precaution is that it identifies targets for would-be saboteurs.
To prevent sabotage, research might be conducted at unmarked and less-protected locations, with a consequent reduction in supervision and safety. Sabotage is a two-edged sword.
Genetic modification is a multi-faceted issue with environmental, economic, scientific, ethical and Treaty of Waitangi implications. It affects the well-being of both this and future generations, and New Zealand's role in a global society.
Significant concerns have been rightly raised. But sabotage before the answers are known has no basis in science or reason, and works against the common good.
* Richard Randerson was a member of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and is dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral in Parnell.
nzherald.co.nz/ge
Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
GE lessons from Britain
GE links
GE glossary
The destruction of genetically modified crops in this country is not only ethically bankrupt but invites further illegal action in retaliation, writes RICHARD RANDERSON*.
The sabotaging of genetically modified potatoes in a Lincoln research facility fails to meet ethical criteria of dissent.
Dissent is a well-established and essential element of any democracy,
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.