Editorial: Reality must rule in debate on GM

It is difficult to tell when scientist Stephen Hawking is winding us up. His now-famous synthesised voice is not so sophisticated that lesser mortals can detect whether his utterances are laced with laughter. So we should not leap too quickly to conclude that he was entirely serious when he suggested that humankind should start modifying its own genes in order to stay ahead of the robots.

Of course, policy research group Genewatch did rise to the occasion and accused him of taking the debate about genetic engineering in the wrong direction. In so doing it was following an increasingly familiar characteristic in the GM debate - leaping to conclusions.

Professor Hawking's comments pointed to the advantages that could accrue from linking human and artificial intelligence. It would, he said, keep human intelligence ahead of artificial intelligence - the robots. He also said it was a very long road. All of which suggests that, at the very least, he was well inside the theoretical realm that is the stuff of which his world is made.

Other scientists, more at home in applied disciplines, would be quick to point out the difficulties involved in such genetic engineering. In short, the robots do not have much to worry about for a while and, frankly, we do not have a lot to fear from the robots either (Hollywood aside).

What we do have to worry about is the direction in which the GM debate is moving. When the eminently sensible findings of a royal commission are swept aside by Bic Runga's T-shirt and sufficient celebrities to have a women's magazine editor's heart racing, something is seriously wrong. And when dissenters at an anti-GM rally are cried down and forced to leave the very definition of a debate is lost.

The vast majority of us are opposed to the notion of cloning human beings and see dangers in transgenic modifications. No one denies that there are risks in allowing genetic modification research to take place in anything other than properly controlled conditions. However, within those constraints there lies a worthwhile and ethically sustainable field of research and development. The royal commission was an admirable focus around which the debate should take place. Instead it has been captured by placard-wavers and public relations experts.

That is an unfortunate development because it promotes the idea that there is a popular front that will accept from our politicians nothing less than a GM-free state that can sit comfortably alongside our nuclear-free status. Both Government and Opposition must resist any temptation to bow to such "popular" movements. The Greens will not be moved from their anti-GM stand and New Zealand First may feel the need to use it to push a populist button, but the remainder in Parliament must be persuaded to see the matter pragmatically and sensibly.

The fact is that, properly managed, genetic modification stands to make this country more competitive and wealthier. Conversely, it will be hard-pressed to challenge other producers and manufacturers if it is held in a GM-free strait-jacket. And that will make the country poorer.

The real debate must be around how New Zealand manages its GM research and development and how it ensures that the results of that research do not have adverse environmental impacts. In other words, how we achieve the right balance.

For a person like Stephen Hawking, imprisoned by motor neuron disease, the placard-wavers must be a burden. Likewise, New Zealanders with conditions such as multiple sclerosis must wonder where the humanity of such people truly lies. For these sufferers, genetic modification may offer the hope of recovery. The medical possibilities that have been opened up by the human genome project are vast but without some ability to undertake genetic modification many of those opportunities will be lost.

Public perceptions are being driven by fear. Fear of the unknown is a legitimate concern but it should not be allowed to be whipped up to mass hysteria. The greatest weapon against fear of the unknown is knowledge and our community must be made more aware of the realities of the GM debate. There will be a safe middle ground where Frankenfood is no more a reality than Stephen Hawking's human-hunting terminators.

www.nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary