About Us

Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand Charitable Trust (NZ Charities no.CC29935) works with qualified researchers and volunteers who work to produce transparent, high quality science information to educate and inform the public.

Initially titled Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics (PSRGNZ), the organisation was established by a group of medical and scientific professionals, who identified potential risks and uncertainty raised by the comparatively new technology of genetic engineering.

An initial concern lay with genetic engineering of crops. Members were concerned about the possible effects these crops could have on the environment and, through the introduction of new foods into the food-chain, the impact on human health.

Early expertise by qualified scientists were required to submit to the 2000/2001 Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, and PSGR presented a number of expert witnesses in this field. Other submissions have subsequently been made as Applications to New Zealand's regulatory authorities.

PSRGNZ operated as a registered Charitable Trust until June 2008 when a name change was made to Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand Charitable Trust (PSGR) to better address important objectives.

Scientists have recently recognised that the production and release of technologies - as Anthropogenic emissions - are fundamentally under-regulated, and this produces an existential global risk. Our work identifies recurring themes and regulatory processes that limit the capacity for governments and regulators to protect public and environmental health. For example, safety testing and data used in risk assessment for most technologies remains primarily supplied by the industry that seeks approval for the new technologies. Often many important considerations are excluded, such as the formulation of a product, and added issues relating to how the product is deployed, either into the environment or as a food or medical product.

PSGR have identified that a major barrier to knowledge is the difficulties public sector (non-industry aligned) scientists face in securing funding for science. Often funding schemes are poorly funded or not in scope, particularly if the science is interdisciplinary. Lawyers and the judiciary struggle with the complex socio-biological relationships, particularly where legal principles such as the Precautionary Principle have been sidelined and downplayed. This places policy-makers who must make decisions in the public interest in difficult positions, as they are required by law to be impartial and act to protect the health of the public, as well as our natural ecosystems. However they lack a deliberation pathway to act precautionarily.

Research into the safety of biotechnology and genetic modification continues. PSGR considers that biotechnology and new gene editing technologies (also referred to as many documents as ‘new breeding technologies’), requires ongoing regulation - transparency - as uncertainty prevails. New technologies scale quickly into the environment. While natural alterations in biology take decades and centuries, biotechnology can be released at global scale in less than 12 months. Transparency (sunlight) and regulation can help to manage this risk. Issues of unforeseen and unintended consequences remain. New technologies positioned as ‘precise’ appear instead, to be imprecise, raising further questions of risk (Latham 2016) (Heinemann et al 2013). Previously considered ‘safe’ traits appear not so safe (Then & Bauer-Panskus 2017).

CASE: BIOLOGY & GMOS

Regulators often keep complex issues at arms length. GMO crops released as field crops, predominantly have contained traits for insecticidal action or express herbicide resistance. These traits are usually ‘stacked’ to manage resistance, and to promote synthetic herbicide use in combination with the plant emitting a naturally produced insecticide. Regulators have not assessed the risk of the end-product as it reaches the public, complete with ongoing regimes of herbicide sprays consumed by the civil society (Latham et al 2017). Herbicide resistant biotechnology crops have resulted in increased rather than decreased pesticide usage, resulting in the production of superweeds. Earlier claimed buffer zones are inadequate to prevent cross-pollination (Hofman et al 2014). Issues such as risk from horizontal gene transfer remains outside risk assessment, yet potentially invasive (promiscuous) volunteer species can spread outside planting zones (Paull 2018) (Tang et al 2018). Questions relating to biopiracy arises when traits, such as drought tolerance which have arisen following decades of cultivation and cross-breeding are slightly altered and patented by a private firm. As more and more pastoral farmers recognise the importance of forage mixtures, might drought tolerant single species outcompete other species, effectively becoming an invasive weed? We also observe the failure to draw attention to issues of regional suitability, which is why farmers might breed one strain of wheat in a different temperate region from another; and the issues of yield returns, for example between herbicide tolerant species and naturally bred hybrids. However cost-benefit analyses have not taken steps to overlay, for example the adverse effect of pesticide spraying regimes, with longer term yield returns.

Biotechnology and gene edited organisms are one technology sector. The biotechnology sector has expanded significantly in the last 3 decades. Media may struggle to adopt a public interest stance, when communicating complex issues of science, ethics and biology. Looking into the future, the cultural and political difficulty governance bodies have with in keeping industry power at arms length and stewarding biotechnology safely, is reflected across a myriad of technologies. With the increasing incidence of cancer and chronic complex health conditions that are increasingly associated with technologies that are persistent, bioaccumulative and/or toxic, there are many opportunities to pivot stewardship of technology to protect public and environmental health.

NEW MEMBERS WELCOME

Members and associate members have provided significant expert scientific advice. We welcome new members with expertise and/or energy, who feel passionate about sharing evidence based, independent science. We also welcome members who might provide insight on how ethical and legal processes might be improved in order to improve deliberation and decision-making across expert communities.

REFERENCES

Heinemann JA, Massaro M, Coray DS, Agapito-Tenfen SZ, Wen JD. Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest. Int J Agric Sustain. 2013:1–18

Hofman et al 2014. Maize pollen deposition in relation to distance from the nearest pollen source under common cultivation - results of 10 years of monitoring (2001 to 2010) 2014;26:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0024-3

James C. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2012. ISAAA; 2012. Available at: http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/download/isaaa-brief-44-2012.pdf

Latham, J. God’s Red Pencil? CRISPR and The Three Myths of Precise Genome Editing. April 25 2016.

Latham et al 2017. The distinct properties of natural and GM cry insecticidal proteins. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews (2017) Vol. 33 , Iss. 1, 2017.

Paull J 2018. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as Invasive Species. Journal of Environment Protection and Sustainable Development. 2018;4:3:31-37

Tang X et al (2018). A large-scale whole-genome sequencing analysis reveals highly specific genome editing by both Cas9 and Cpf1 (Cas12a) nucleases in rice. Genome Biology 19:84. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-018-1458-5

Then & Bauer-Panskus 2017. Possible health impacts of Bt toxins and residues from spraying with complementary herbicides in genetically engineered soybeans and risk assessment as performed by the European Food Safety Authority EFSA. Environ Sci Eur. 2017; 29(1): 1.

Our Twenty-Five Year History

REFERENCES

Information

Providing scientific & medical information & analysis in the service of the public's right to be independently informed on issues relating to human & environmental health.