A lot has changed since the GE free movement’s heyday, and with law reform coming, DNA expert Mike Bunce hopes New Zealand is ready to have a mature discussion about the role gene technologies can play in our society.

In the late 90s I had just completed a university degree in genetics. A polarising debate was kicking off on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Are they good, are they bad? Please choose a side. 

The internet was gaining traction in the 90s too. Is it good or is it bad? 

The question is equally valid as, like gene technology, your answer will depend on the application(s) you are asked to consider. 

In the late 90s I left New Zealand as I wanted to use DNA tools in my research, but the rules that were coming into effect were very restrictive. Some called it precautionary, but to me it more closely resembled prohibition. Rather than stay in New Zealand and make DNA moonshine, I decided to move across the ditch.

Back in New Zealand, and two decades later, I am closely watching the public debate as dialogue kicks off on the gene technology bill announced this week. As we revisit this topic, I hope we have learnt that this is not a binary “good or bad” decision where we have to choose a side. 

We need to collectively take a ride to the DNA side and make some informed decisions on the rules, regulation and risk. It may not be an easy ride, but it’s one worth taking.

Let’s backtrack a little 

Every living species – including you – is forged from a DNA blueprint. It fills our cells and the food we eat. In addition to food varieties that we have genetically bred into existence, we also rely on DNA “tech” for diagnostic tests (remember the PCR tests during the pandemic?), vaccines, forensics, medicines like insulin, and DNA-based ancestry. Why, then, don’t we pay closer attention to how our lives, food, families and wellbeing are intrinsically interwoven within the two helices of DNA? 

We accept some technologies into our lives without blinking. Others we resist and rarely talk about. Why then do DNA technologies, even on the back of RNA vaccines that saved millions of lives, always seem to sit in the latter category? 

It bothers me as this is foundational and important stuff. It is unhealthy not to talk about important stuff.

The playing field has changed

Decoding the first human genome was completed in the year 2000 – it took a decade and cost ~US$4 billion. The same genome today costs about US$500 and takes a day. This transformational ability to sequence genomes has opened a variety of applications; from human health and disease detection through to deciding which kākāpō shouldn’t interbreed as they are cousins.

Coupled with rapid surveys of the genetic code was the discovery of CRISPR-Cas9 technologies which, unlike the gene tech of the 90s, enable precision edits to the genetic code.

One tangible example of gene technology in action is CAR-T cell therapies that are being developed here in New Zealand and overseas. If you are not up to speed on this latest acronym, CAR-T is a cancer therapy that involves removing cells from a patient, modifying them genetically, then putting them back into the patient where their new programming means they attack your cancer.  

As the regulator of the current rulebook, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has already made some decisions surrounding CAR-T cells, but, arguably, the barriers, costs and timelines could be sharpened. Some low-risk applications like CAR-T might not have to be regulated under a new framework.

Whether it is a new cancer treatment, a pine tree that can’t reproduce, or a new predator control tool, these are all topics that need to be debated as the gene technology bill goes to select committee. Getting these settings “right” is vital, and this includes keeping agility in the rules given the speed of innovation.

We won’t agree on everything

Debate over the past three decades strongly indicates that the country will remain divided on this topic – some New Zealanders will remain opposed to gene editing irrespective of the application or the benefits. Some may have decided in the 90s on which side of the fence they’re sitting and don’t want to move. But I hope we can put away some of this history from last century and take a fresh look.

However, akin to the Covid-19 pandemic, I suspect the misinformation and disinformation will ramp up on this topic, as it has in the past. The call that New Zealand should remain GE free is loud. However, New Zealand is not “GE free”. There are foods we buy, vaccines we use, cotton we wear and former cancer patients who are alive today that are all the result of gene technologies. The debate has become more nuanced than “GE free”.   

If we are going to continue to put barriers in front of these technologies (especially those that are out of step with other countries), we also need to understand what we are giving up by leaving a slow, costly and precautionary approach in place. No, technically speaking our current setting is not a “ban”, but it feels like one to those involved in trying to realise some of the benefits, especially those exploring low-risk applications 

Research suggests both Māori and Pākehā have a level of comfort with medical applications, but there remains some unease around the release of gene-modified foods. Some caution in this space is justified – nobody is suggesting a free-for-all. Overseas, some countries have landed on a position that they are OK with editing of food as long as gene modifications are equivalent to the changes that could have been obtained using more traditional breeding approaches (ie where the gene technology has simply sped up the selection process).  

As the new bill is debated at select committee, a consensus (or at least clarity) will need to be developed on how both low-risk and high-risk applications are handled from technical, economic, cultural and economic perspectives.

Many countries don’t agree on how they should regulate gene technologies, but most have become more permissive in recent years as evidence mounts on safety, sustainability and benefit. 

A new regulator and a risk framework

While details are still patchy, the government has signalled it wishes to set up a dedicated regulatory function within the EPA that is more permissive, especially on low-risk applications.

There are two points worth noting about the government announcement. First, keeping the regulatory function within the EPA signals that the decision making will be made independent of governmental influence. In other words, the government gets to set the rules but not make the decisions. 

Second, similar to Australia, the bill will explore a regulatory risk-based framework where low-risk applications (e.g. CAR-T therapy and experiments contained within laboratories) may be permitted, but some applications that involve environmental release will still be scrutinised. I suspect it will be in the realm of “environmental release” that the debate will be had – what are the safety/benefit thresholds that need to be met to warrant release?

What next?

Before the last election, the parties now in government signalled their intention to reform gene technology laws, so it should be no surprise to see the gene technology bill on the national radar. After a period of stasis (since the 90s), things are moving quickly – the next step being draft legislation being tabled and reliance on the select committee process to play its role.

As this is going on, I hope to see Aotearoa New Zealand lift its “DNA game” a little over the binary debates from the 90s. We have some gnarly problems to tackle around sustainable food, forestry, biodiversity, climate, disease, biosecurity and human health. While not silver-bullet solutions to this shopping list of problems, genetic tools – including gene modification – will help in these missions. But first it’s imperative that we get the risk and regulatory settings calibrated so informed decisions can be made.