Editorial: We're way behind in biotechnology

The contrast is as ironic as it is stark. Singapore, a state as devoid of agricultural research expertise as it is of farm animals, is spending lavishly to become a world leader in biotechnology. New Zealand, a leader in agricultural research as befits a country with far more farm animals than humans, is stalled. Biotechnology is on hold while the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification deliberates. If, as some insist, genetic engineering is the third technological revolution, after the steam engine and the computer, New Zealand is falling well off the pace in a race it should relish.

While we debate ethical issues, the seven successful economies studied in the Herald's Our Turn series have been far more pragmatic. They have seen the logic in the view that genetic engineering will transform the way we live, and have embraced it. In each country, hundred of millions of dollars of government funds and private investment have been poured into genetic research.

Contrast that with the situation encapsulated by the contrived crisis over Ruakura research aimed at producing proteins that could improve the treatment of multiple sclerosis. The Greens zeroed in when the High Court ruled, on a technicality, against the implanting of a human gene into cattle foetuses. They called for the cows impregnated with the genetically modified foetuses to be slaughtered. Multiple sclerosis sufferers were justifiably outraged. Here was a graphic illustration of how far the Greens are out of step with international sentiment. And how an important plank in our future prosperity has fallen hostage, even if temporarily, to their ability to initiate a moratorium and a largely unnecessary royal commission.

Obviously, genetic engineering has inherent risks. Experiments involving the transplanting of genetic material, especially across different species, must be tightly controlled. But the Greens' policy of not letting genetically modified organisms outside the laboratory is unrealistically restrictive. Effectively, they maintain that unless they are convinced that nothing can go wrong, nothing should be done. Such thinking precludes risks; it also precludes any meaningful progress.

The Greens worry that genetic research could lead to natural species being infected, and the loss of our clean, green image. In particular, the country's organic crops would lose their credibility. This, they argue, would undermine our ability to benefit from growing consumer demand for organic food.

Such thinking is hardly unique. Denmark, similarly, has an important dairying industry, and popular opinion there has a strong greenish tinge. But it has recognised the potential rewards of genetic research, especially in farm production and medicine. It sees the chance to improve people's lives worldwide while enriching itself. The benefits of a thriving organic food industry are small beer in comparison.

The approach of the Danish corporate sector has helped. Most companies involved in genetic research, such as pharmaceuticals giant Novo Nordisk, have been open about what they are doing. Contrast that with AgResearch's reticence over its Ruakura research. Secrecy merely provides ammunition for the opponents of biotechnology.

AgResearch's lapse, however, pales into relative insignificance alongside the continuing frustration for scientists involved in genetic research here. That frustration has claimed Dr Phil L'Huillier, the team leader of the Ruakura research. He has left to work overseas for a private biotechnology company. Such is the money being poured into genetic research in successful economies, and such is New Zealand's tradition in agricultural science, that Dr L'Huillier's expertise was doubtless much sought.

To become a significant force in genetic research, we will have to make other adjustments. Our biotechnology industry is too fragmented and there is not enough collaboration between crown research institutes and local companies. But, most immediately, the royal commission must deliver rational guidelines when it reports on July 27. These will acknowledge the risk but, more importantly, recognise the rewards being captured by successful economies. New Zealand once rang the bells of agricultural research. It is time for Green-tinged dampers to be removed from those bells.

Our turn

Send us your feedback:

Simon Collins

Letters to the editor (newspaper)

Other stories in this feature


Related features:

The jobs challenge

Common core values

href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?reportID=57032">The knowledge society

Official website:

Catching the Knowledge Wave