Viewpoint

Stacking the Odds

Owen McShane

The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification is getting underway. This may be a world first. Alas. The Commission has to determine the conditions under which New Zealand as a nation will accept and develop this powerful technology.

Of course, it may be a bit late. In 1953, when Francis Crick and James Watson unravelled the molecular structure of the gene they launched a new scientific era -- molecular biology went digital. At about the same time, the development of transistors launched digital electronics and the world is now wrapped in a digital web.

We have fully accepted the electronic realm -- even politicians are enthusiasts. But the new biology makes them nervous even though it is digital to the core. After all, genes are pure information; information that can be coded and decoded without any change in meaning. Almost 50 years later, our Royal Commission will determine whether we participate in only one half of the digital revolution or both.

Ironically, we have no obvious comparative advantage in the world of electronics, but we do have a world wide reputation in applied biology. The great debate appears to be shaking down to a contest between two competing world views.

In one corner of the ring we have the scientists and engineers who wish to practise their craft, subject to the normal rules and regulations being gradually established around the world as knowledge and law evolves. In the other corner we have those who are convinced that genetic technology is a pandora9s box on which the lid should be firmly closed -- or only opened when we have identified a desperate need.

The Commission will try to be a fair referee, but the contest is inherently biased. The culture of science is hesitant and incremental. Scientists talk about seven year programmes which might deliver some useful compounds, which then might prove useful in trials and which might then achieve registration.

The anti-GM brigade have few such doubts. They know the science is bad, and that any imaginable disaster will inevitably happen. They have no problem imagining mayhem, catastrophe, and and the wrath of the gods. They enthusiastically adopt the precautionary principle. On the other hand the benefits of new technologies tend to take us by surprise.

The American military scientists who developed a telecommunications system able to survive a nuclear strike never foresaw the Internet. Sir Ernest Rutherford declared that humanity would never be able to access the energy locked up in the nucleus. Fleming never dreamed of antibiotics. Faraday never though about food processors and Maxwell had no eye for the microwave oven.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority has been facing these these dilemmas as it tries to weigh the potential benefits against the potential risks of each application, case by individual case. The Royal Commission is trying to make a similar assessment about the totality of this infant technology -- which is surely an impossible task.

Will their conclusions actually matter? I doubt it. The real outcomes of genetic modification are likely to be beyond our current ken. When they arise we shall decide what to do at the time. Moll Flanders would remind the panel that "circumstances alter cases".

The last serious attempt by a governing body to direct the course of science was in 1633 when the Church of Rome tried to put the cap back on Galileo's telescope, and halt the development of science based on observation and experiment, rather the classical texts. The edict succeeded in closing down science in the Mediterranean, leaving the way clear for the northern countries. The great names of science became English and French with Isaac Newton as the pole star.

One thing we do know. While New Zealand science sits out its own moratorium, others scientists, in other places to the North, are forging ahead with both the science and the craft of digital biology. Will our scientists sit around and wait for judgment, or will they simply leave for more enthusiastic and less green shores? Are we creating another gap to close?

Owen McShane is a columnist with the National Business Review.