Bioethics Centre: Genetic engineering rules must include spiritual, ethical perspectives

On March 14, the Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics made an oral submission to Parliament’s Health Select Committee on the Gene Technology Bill. The submission expressed openness to the use of genetic engineering, but stated that the regulatory environment proposed by the bill is “a paradigmatic example of the reductionist, science-first approach”.

Biotechnologies have significant consequences at a societal level, the submission stated, and . . . “they need to be critiqued and regulated according to the interplay that results between society and science, rather than apart from societal input”.

“We believe this requires consultation with a wide range of perspectives other than the scientific and economic.”

The submission argued that the bill “potentially gives too much control to groups with a vested economic or scientific interest”, and “it construes democratic consultation and oversight as irrelevant, if not a potential threat to scientific innovation”.

“This type of science-first approach is highly unacceptable to our minds, not to mention that it fails to establish a true partnership model with Māori as demanded by the Treaty [of Waitangi].”

A better example of a balanced regulatory regime is provided for in the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (HART) Act (2004), the submission stated.

The HART Act affirms “the needs, values, and beliefs of Māori should be considered and treated with respect” and . . . clearly states that “the different ethical, spiritual and cultural perspectives in society should be considered and treated with respect”.

The HART Act also spells out the requirement for public consultation and it sets out a regulatory framework that centres around an advisory committee that works closely with an ethics committee.

“In the absence of mechanisms allowing broader interdisciplinary input and public input into decisions about GE, we believe the regulatory process, as proposed [in the Gene Technology Bill], risks alienating large sections of the public of Aotearoa New Zealand, undermining public confidence and leading to the possibility of significant public resistance,” the Nathaniel Centre submission stated.

“To summarise, GE raises fundamental questions that go beyond scientific risk and economic benefit. The scientific and technological frontier is also a cultural, ethical, moral and spiritual frontier.”

FULL STORY

Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics oral submission on Gene Technology Bill