Publications & Resources

For two hundred years, global citizens have witnessed the ascent of scientific and technical information to become a key instrument in government decision-making. Over this time prominent scientists and scholars have issued warnings that scientific and technical information might not be the apolitical, impartial policy tool that it is typically represented as. Their warnings, that scientific information can be political and self-serving and not serve the wider interest of society, should be heeded.

PSGR's 2023 Discussion paper When does science become propaganda? What does this suggest for democracy seeks to encourage a discussion on a topic that is important but neglected. Information and intelligence used for policy and law in society, if it is to benefit society, must be impartial. Where there are financial or political conflicts of interest, there must be areas of resourced expertise that can act as a counter to those interests, so as to make decisions in the interest of society.

Technologies and their emissions are everywhere, in air, water, soil -all the way to the digital space, but there is no local monitoring or scientific research to triangulate the claims of the industry-paid scientists. Democracies have a stewardship problem, if there is no funding for independent science.

By convention, the information that supports the release onto the market and into the environment of technologies and their emissions is broadly controlled by the same industries that seek market access and re-authorisation of these products. There can be no assurance of safety if local, public-sector scientists do not have freedom and resources to monitor and assess how and why these technologies might cause harm over time.

Yet the scientific and technical information is designed for a political purpose, to secure entry onto a domestic market. When it is non-contestable, when there are no impartial arbiters, when the public more often identifies government claims as biased towards a commercial institution, it is not surprising that society becomes polarised.

Such scientific and technical information serves the political and financial interests of the institutions that produce it, when it is not subject to democratic scrutiny. When it is taken for granted as facts by political and bureaucratic elites, and used to convince society of safety, this information may be better classified as propaganda.

This issues paper draws on many New Zealand-based examples to highlight the persistent decoupling of the research, science and information system from research trajectories that might challenge or contradict powerful interests. However, this governance problem of capture is globally recognised. The dilemma in front of us extends beyond technologies, health and the environment. New Zealand research and science systems have been substantially eroded, some might say captured, so that New Zealand lacks the healthy, resilient informational systems – the intelligence - to support public knowledge, guide Parliament, government administration and the judiciary.

It’s necessary that these issues are broadly discussed and debated, as ignorance not only renders society powerless to reversing health harms and reversing the erosion of valuable resources, but ignorance increases potential for human rights abuses.

The ways governments and regulators design policies, and declare technologies are safe for public use, deserves much wider public scrutiny, if we are to remedy current trajectories of worsening health, corrupted political processes and civic disengagement.

CHAPTER 1. THE REGULATOR SAYS IT’S SAFE

For decades, communities of concerned citizens and expert communities cautiously and carefully methodologically review and present the scientific evidence of harm from a technology in public forums to the politicians representing their interests at local, regional and central government level. But after consulting with officials or the regulator, the elected politicians come back to them and declare that – ‘the regulator says it’s safe’, or the policy remains unaltered. The case is then closed. The concerned publics are dismissed via chains of officials who act as informational gatekeepers.

The scientific and scholarly literature is replete with descriptions of civic struggles as citizens and experts contest private industry supplied information and brittle policy processes that by not reflecting changing knowledges, ultimately defer to industry authority. These descriptions aim to contribute to the record and signal publicly, the complex issues which remain outside regulatory consideration [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. The technology might be a chemical or formulation [11, 12, 13]; a novel biotechnology [14, 15, 16, 17]; geoengineering [18] [19] [20]; digital governance infrastructure with AI [21]; or it might be wireless radiation [22, 23, 24].

No matter the extensive, elegantly produced, damning and eye-raising scientific research that would come after – such ‘out of scope’ scientific research studies are persistently dismissed as non-guideline; or irrelevant, while calls by expert scientists are met with silence.

Yet what is consensus, if the data is paid for by corporations with a financial conflict of interest and if governments actively suppress politically inconvenient and contradictory information?

Pick your technology and you’ll see a familiar pattern. Government officials judge safety based on sets of technicalities which revolve around the revision of linear toxicological science supplied by the relevant industry and limited modelling scenarios [25]. These specific studies enable the regulator to approve an acceptable level of risk or tolerance by humans of the technology. The product is then released onto the market. Commercial in-confidence agreements ensure the public cannot access the information – the market-science - which ensures market access for the technology. Monitoring and research are not undertaken to understand and update regulatory scientists on real world risk [26].

The private industry studies which fit inside the rules can be decades old and still support existing standards, no matter the contradictions in the scientific literature. For example, the World Health Organizations’ [27] current safe level for the herbicide glyphosate in drinking water is derived from an unpublished Monsanto study, set in 1985 [28]. Hundreds, if not thousands of studies in the scientific literature suggest that this herbicide is more harmful than presumed by chemical regulators. Extensive information has been unearthed in court cases. Yet there has been no revision of guidelines nor a budging of the claimed safe level in drinking water.

This information produced for the purpose of market access may be described as non-consensual, organised persuasive communication (propaganda).

‘For the information to be consensual it must contain the relevant information that can allow a rational and informed decision to be made… critical information should not be omitted or distorted in a way that leads an individual to be persuaded when otherwise, with the included or undistorted information, they would not be.’ [29, p. 11]

Our governments play a role in maintaining the status quo. The formalised rules and guidelines used to decide whether information is suitable for market access (or re-authorisation) purposes conventionally fail to impose obligations on government officials to also review published scientific literature. Officials and regulators are not required to consider court findings nor consider the risk from rapidly scaling up new technologies and then releasing them [30, 31]. Officials ignore and dismiss harm at endocrinologically relevant low-doses [32, 33], and other harm pathways, including mixture effects [34, 35, 36, 5, 37] and antibiotic effects [38]. Chemicals are withdrawn and replaced by ‘regrettable’ substitutes with similar characteristics. [39][40]

These gaps impact the ability to address big problems. Current ‘inequality’ and ‘equity’ tropes skate over the greater health burden suffered by low-income communities and the role of government agencies to limit harm [41]. From workplace exposures; to malnutrition from ultraprocessed diets; to detecting industrial and polluted sites [42, 43, 44, 45, 46], these issues are more difficult to identify and then remedy when robust, independent information is lacking. In New Zealand, it is easier to get livestock tested for toxic exposures than a recently exposed child.

Legislation and guidelines promote regulatory capture by ensuring that governing bodies and regulatory agencies are reliant on industry funding and are underfunded [47, 48, 49]. Governing bodies and regulators consequently by default arrange their activities around the service of granting and sustaining market access to their related industries.

The barriers to public appeal in New Zealand alone are extraordinary. Without scientific debate and scrutiny, and review across different domains of expertise, there can be no truth in the claim that a particular technology and/or its’ emissions are safe.

All too often, regulators are not given broader powers of inquiry, and the resources to carry out that inquiry in a fair and balanced way.

Judicial review of decisions which are inconsistent with principles in legislation do not happen. Court cases debating technical points might occur, but judges detest dealing with value-laden scientific controversies.

The absence of independent scientific communities also leaves judges, select committees and officials who might consider broader notions of risk, deferring to the very officials who may be heading the policy agenda. The very actors who are most likely to have a political conflict of interest. Their institutions may believe that the release of the technology will contribute to their institutions’ goals; or as regulators they may have long-term relationships with the corporations seeking approval for their technologies. Yet in a court case the judges will defer to their expertise as Crown agents.

These factors combine to produce a slanted weight of information supporting the market access and widespread integration of a given technology. Information is intelligence, yet it is geared to private industry selected and supplied intelligence.

However, it is not private industry that we should blame. It is a failure of governments to recognise the potential for abuse of power by highly predatory commercial interests and put in place governance architecture and resourcing which might counter-balance this power. It is the failure to lock in principles, and educate officials on how to make decisions in ambiguous, complex and uncertain environments, in the public interest.

The consequence in play in the early twenty-first century, is strategic, organisational communication across governance and regulatory landscapes which leave little space for controversies that contradict commercial priorities. In 1942, Talcott Parsons highlighted how institutions mesh or integrate with social environments to produce an interdependence. These institutions could not be considered in isolation.

‘Institutional patterns consist of norms defining what action and attitudes are legitimately expected of people, they are, in one aspect, actually part of the cultural tradition.’ [50]

The microprocesses, the patterns across the policy, science, and media communities can be studied to identify how central dogmas are produced and enforced. Laura Nader theorised that institutions at multiple sites cultivate and maintain central ideas of accepted taste and value. Nader described these controlling processes as:

‘the mechanisms by which ideas take hold and become institutional in relation to power.’ [51]

Controlling processes keep published scientific literature at arm’s length, even while scientific outcomes are heavily associated with the priorities of the research sponsors [52, 53].

This organised persuasive communication implies expert consensus. However, these practices inevitably deceive the public on safety, because contradictory science is excluded from official consideration. It theoretically justifies to the public that the technologies that society are exposed to in daily life, which society must accept, are safe.

Democracies are tasked with preventing abuse of power. The way governments achieve this is through requiring officials to act transparently and accountably. However, when it comes to information used to claim safety of technological inventions, processes of transparency and accountability are jettisoned.

For references and to continue reading: PSGR (2023) When does science become propaganda? What does this suggest for democracy? Bruning, J.R., Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand. ISBN 978-0-473-68632-1

Genetic Engineering: Policy and Science since the Royal Commission: Insoluble Problems

Short- and long-term risk arising from daily exposures to novel entities, are disregarded and downplayed in Aotearoa New Zealand[i] [ii] [iii]. Media and governance institutions do not sufficiently communicate nor reflect the complexity and degree of risk, that is represented in the scientific literature.

The failure to steward - and resource science relating to - chemicals and pollution is a global phenomenon. Only a small fraction of chemicals are stewarded, there is an absence of horizon scanning to identify risk, there is an absence of feedback loops into the policy and regulatory communities, and there is a failure to provide resourcing and latitude for expert interdisciplinary communities that can traverse the issues at hand.

Scientific research required to identify and assess risk to novel entities is markedly under-resourced. Scientists who maintain staff and expensive research facilities cannot easily access funding to explore human and environmental health risk from synthetic chemical, heavy metal and biotechnological emissions.[iv]

NOVEL ENTITIES

Many Anthropogenic emissions can be classified as novel entities. In 2015, Will Steffan et al. recognised novel entities as:

“new substances, new forms of existing substances and modified life forms that have the potential for unwanted geophysical and/or biological effects… These potentially include chemicals and other new types of engineered materials or organisms not previously known to the Earth system as well as naturally occurring elements (for example, heavy metals) mobilized by anthropogenic activities”.[vii]

Everyday commercial industries; factories; transport; agriculture; service industries and the functions of household and community life, result in emissions of chemicals and the biotechnologies into to air, water, soil and into human, animal and other forms of life. Anthropogenic deployment of novel entities into the environment are of concern at the global level when these entities exhibit (i) persistence, (ii) mobility across scales with consequent widespread distributions, and (iii) potential impacts on vital Earth System processes or sub-systems. [xvii] Risk increases from chemical mixtures which can produce additive and/or synergistic effects.

The year 1950 is recognised as the start of the Anthropocene[viii], when the great expansion in industries and human activity surged post World War II. Since the 1950’s expansion of these industries has been multiscalar, without concomitant resourcing to identify risk both at scale, and to reflect the complex use patterns of these products.

Only a small proportion of chemicals undergo risk assessment,[ix] and frequently risk assessment uses outdated methodologies, or patterns of assessment that result in industry data being kept secret, and the profile of the drug as it is marketed, being thoroughly assessed.[x] [xi] [xii] [xiii]

Most media and governance focus revolve around carbon emissions and the control of carbon emissions by the alteration of agriculture and daily activities. Chemical and biotechnology emissions and risks from manmade technologies remain fundamentally disregarded.

Stewardship[xiv], including monitoring and research, risk assessments and national emissions standards have not kept space with the speed of introduction and deployment into the environment. Scientists consider that human activity has modified and potentially disrupts many critical earth system processes. In order to protect these processes, scientists urge that governing bodies steward a safe operating space where earth systems do not decline into irreversible tipping points.

Recently, the lag in stewardship has resulted in Stockholm Institute scientists proposing that the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel entities is exceeded when annual production and releases increase at a pace that outstrips the global capacity for assessment and monitoring.[xv]

Meaningful regulation remains set aside as regulators turn to industry for evidence of harm. For example, the co-operative relationships between pharmaceutical drug producers and governments does not extend to the development of public policy treaties, protocols and agreements that include demands to reduce the presence of pharmaceutical products in water.[xvi] Pesticides regulation continues to be shaped by industry influence, biotech industries and patent holders pressure for biotechnology regulation and meaningful regulation fails to be implemented to steward and protect all vertebrates from endocrine disruptors in diets and in the environment.

STEWARDSHIP OF MANMADE TECHNOLOGIES DENIED & DISCOUNTED?

The term ‘science denial’ reflects

‘an activity aimed at renouncing some well-justified assertion or theory in mainstream science’ , irrespective of whether this activity targets research or policy-making.

'Chemicals denial' has been identified as a phenomenon that consists of repeated patterns to deny and dismiss the degree to which chemicals and waste represent a risk to biological function. Such activities occur in New Zealand. In the PSGR & the Soil and Health Association released a 2019 paper that documented the patterns of chemical denial that has distorted New Zealand policy on freshwater for at least ten years, steering government consideration away from industrial chemicals, and directing consultation and policy exclusively towards 'pathogens, nutrients and sediment.'

Fail to resource and under-resourcing of monitoring capacity and scientific research not only applies to research exploring effects in the natural environment.[v] For medical doctors attempting to identify the drivers of chronic disease in patients, there are systemic barriers to conducting serum and tissue analysis to identify relationships and identify potential disease drivers, using advanced technologies, including biomarker assisted technologies. Associations from exposures can include inflammation, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption and oxidative stress.

As we have noted:

‘Omics technologies (adductomics, epigenomics, proteomics, metabolomics and transcriptomics) traverse a broader biological space, and can complement the traditional biomarker endpoints and play an important role in understanding mixture effects, and the early molecular events in the pathways leading to disease which to date has been largely excluded from regulatory considerations.’[vi]

Such technologies are available and widely incorporated in drug development, as well as in environmental research to understand system stressors of vertebrates.

CONSOLIDATION OF INDUSTRY POWER

Novel entities can be broadly grouped into synthetic chemicals, products of biotechnology and include heavy metals. Industry sectors are powerful, and work closely with governments and their regulators to advance policy and shape (and resist changes to) guidelines.

The chemical industry is the second largest manufacturing industry globally. Industry restructuring and consolidation has dominated the past decade, accompanied by vertical integration, increasing control along the chain of production. Between 2010 and 2050, production is projected to triple. There are an estimated 350 000 chemicals (or mixtures of chemicals) on the global market, with 6,000 of these chemicals accounting for more than 99 per cent of the total volume. Material extraction as feed stocks for novel entities was approximately 92 billion tonnes globally in 2017, and is projected to reach 190 billion tonnes by 2060.[xviii]

Patterns of concentration in major industries that are emitters of novel have occurred across the global food system[xix], the pesticides and crop protection sector[xx] and the pharmaceutical industry[xxi]. Unimpeded corporate concentration has expanded the market power of investment management institutions and dominant industries, distorting prices[xxii] and leading the IMF to question whether extreme market power suppresses innovation.[xxiii]

The power of these large institutions and related investment management institutions are woven into government policies through processes of international trade agreements, industry meetings to develop regulatory guidelines and via global treaties. Public organisations are often excluded from these processes, and there are barriers to participation. Media rarely cover these events, and advertising incentives reduce the likelihood that a critical perspective will be adopted.

The global crop protection chemicals market was projected to grow from $59.41 billion in 2021 to $81.74 billion in 2028.[xxiv] From 1990-2009 annual imports of pesticides into New Zealand increased by 70%.[xxv] In 2009 recording-keeping ceased.

The global biotechnology market is expected to expand from US$ 852.88 billion in 2020, and to be worth around US$ 3.44 trillion by 2030. A CAGR of 17.83% during forecast period 2021 to 2030. Market growth has been driven by SARS-CoV- which is ‘driving the market’, through supportive government initiatives and advances in nanobiotechnologies, using nanotechnologies for drug delivery. [xxvi]

In 2020 global pharmaceutical revenues were valued at USD1.42 trillion.[xxvii]

The scientists, pivoted to recognise that substantial growth in volumes of these technologies, effectively means that novel entities are ungoverned:

‘increasing trends of production and emissions of diverse novel entities that outstrip our efforts at safety assessment and monitoring are a transgression of the planetary boundary and that immediate actions are needed to return us to the safe operating space’.

The acknowledged the problem of lock-in where companies shift sideways to produce replacement compounds (which have potential to be regrettable substitutes). The scientists recommended a preventative and precautionary hazard-based approach to steward these technologies, and concluded

‘that increases in production and releases of novel entities are not consistent with keeping humanity within the safe operating space, in the light of the global capacity for management.’ [xxviii]

For 20 years, PSGR NZ have released reports and made submissions to government consultations. Reports focussing on novel entities include:

BIOTECHNOLOGY & GENE EDITING TECHNOLOGIES

Report: Transgenic cotton, a toxic business (2017)

Report: Genetic Engineering FAQs (2010)

DEPLETED URANIUM.

Report: Why depleted uranium should be banned from New Zealand (2012)

FLUORIDE TOXICITY

Submission on endocrine (thyroid hormone) - related risk, Fluoridation of Drinking water Amendment Bill (2021)

Report: The Fluoride Debate (2014)

MERCURY TOXICITY

Report: Dental amalgam & mercury poisoning (2015)

NANOTECHNOLOGY

Report: Nanotechnology. A New Zealand Perspective (2014).

PESTICIDES

Submission: NZEPA Glyphosate Call for Information (2021)

Article: Glyphosate. Twenty years of highlighting cancer risk.

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY.

Report: Synthetic biology (2017)

REFERENCES

[i] PSGR (2021 Aug), Inquiry on the Natural and Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary Paper Environment Committee. https://psgr.org.nz/component/jdownloads/send/1-root/72-21nba

[ii] PSGR (2022, March 16) Submission Te Ara Paerangi - Future Pathways Green Paper. Submitted to the: Future Pathways Policy Team Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. https://psgr.org.nz/component/jdownloads/send/1-root/88-nzscience

[iii] PSGR (2021, Oct 3). Submission Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/53SCEN_EVI_112194_EN7820/81f0cd1bb6c6cd56e4630e975b9f0e6dcb0d888c

[iv] Bruning, J. (2021). Master’s thesis (research). Innovation and Ignorance: How Innovation Funding Cultures Disincentivise

Endocrine Disruption Research. Department of Sociology. University of Auckland.

[v] Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (2022, March) Knowing what’s out there: Regulating the environmental fate of chemicals

[vi] PSGR (2022, Aug, 7) Submission Public consultations on the Food Regulatory System Strategic Plan 2023-2026. Ref: ANON-NESK-81CH-5

[vii] Steffen, Wet al. (2015). Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet. Science 2015, 347 (6223), 1259855−1259855.

[viii] Crutzen et al. (2002), Geology of mankind. Nature 415, 23 (2002). 10.1038/415023a doi:10.1038/415023a

[ix] UN Environment. Global Chemicals Outlook II - From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; 978-92-807-3745-5, 2019.

[x] Demeneix, B., & Slama, R. (2019). Endocrine Disruptors: from Scientific Evidence to Human Health Protection. requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions. PE 608.866 - March 2019. Brussels: Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs.

[xi] Benbrook et al 2021. Commentary: Novel strategies and new tools to curtail the health effects of pesticides. Environmental Health volume 20: 87 2021

[xii] Robinson et al 2020. Achieving a High Level of Protection from Pesticides in Europe: Problems with the Current Risk Assessment Procedure and Solutions. European Journal of Risk Regulation. DOI:10.1017/err.2020.18

[xiii] Kassotis et al 2020. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: economic, regulatory, and policy implications. The Lancet 8:719-730

[xiv] Boston et al. (2019) Foresight, insight and oversight: Enhancing long-term governance through better parliamentary scrutiny. Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington. ISBN 978-0-473-48292-3

[xv] Persson L et al. (2022) Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities. Environmental Science & Technology 56 (3), 1510-1521 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04158

[xvi] González Peña, O. I., López Zavala, M. Á., & Cabral Ruelas, H. (2021). Pharmaceuticals Market, Consumption Trends and Disease Incidence Are Not Driving the Pharmaceutical Research on Water and Wastewater. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(5), 2532. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052532

[xvii] Persson L et al. (2022) Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities. Environmental Science & Technology 56 (3), 1510-1521 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04158

[xviii] UN Environment. Global Chemicals Outlook II - From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; 978-92-807-3745-5, 2019.

[xix] Clapp, J. (2021). The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the global food system. Nature Food. 2, 404–408 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00297-7

[xx] Watson D. (2018) Pesticides and Agriculture Profit, Politics and Policy. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited

[xxi] Shepherd J. (2018). Consolidation and Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Role of Mergers and Acquisitions in the Current Innovation Ecosystem, 21 J. Health Care L. & Pol'y 1 (2018). https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jhclp/vol21/iss1/2

[xxii] Clapp J. & Isakson SR. (2018). Speculative Harvests Financialization, Food, and Agriculture. Practical Action Publishing.

[xxiii] Diez et al (2018). Global Market Power and its Macroeconomic Implications. International Monetary Fund, 15/06/2018

[xxiv] Fortune business insights

[xxv] MfE & StatsNZ 2020 MfE’s Our Freshwater paper, Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ Publication number: ME 1490 https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Publications/Files/our-freshwater-2020.pdf

[xxvi] BioSpace (2022, April 25) Biotechnology Market Size to Worth Around US$ 3.44 Trillion by 2030 https://www.biospace.com/article/biotechnology-market-size-to-worth-around-us-3-44-trillion-by-2030/

[xxvii] Statista (2022, August 23) Revenue of the worldwide pharmaceutical market from 2001-2021 https://www.statista.com/statistics/263102/pharmaceutical-market-worldwide-revenue-since-2001/

[xxviii] Persson L et al. (2022) Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities. Environmental Science & Technology 56 (3), 1510-1521 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04158

Illustrated public lectures presented by Robert Anderson

Climate change

Depleted Uranium Issue

EMR - Electro magnetic radiation

Iraq – a nuclear war?

Nanotechnology

Peak oil

Revisiting Silent Spring: Living in a toxic world

Synthetic biology

The sacred ocean: how long have we got?

I thank Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility for offering to host these lectures in recognition of Bob’s work for PSGR from 1998 to 2008. And I thank everyone who helped make it possible to post them here.

Bob died on 5 December 2008. In the previous decade, he had given public lectures throughout New Zealand on a wide range of scientific, social justice and human rights issues, beginning with genetic engineering. The subjects covered were at the public’s request and given under the auspices of a number of different organizations.

The lectures are offered gratis. If you wish to use the material, please acknowledge your source and continue to use Bob’s work without charge in the interests of the public’s right to be independently informed. If you would like to recognize his input, I ask you to consider donating to PSGR (1), Quaker Peace and Service Aotearoa/New Zealand (2) or Amnesty International (3 or any movement of your choice working towards social justice and peace. Every donation helps.

Bob was a Quaker and lived by the tenets of his faith. He opposed violence between people and nations, to other species and to our planet. He believed that true peace cannot be dictated; it can only be built on equality, social justice, respect, and co-operation between all peoples. He was passionate about the welfare of all beings, regardless of race or religion, with a special caring for women and children, and about the welfare of the world this generation would leave behind. Bob worked tirelessly to better that world.

Jean Anderson, November 2009

New Zealand only: enquiries about Robert Anderson’s books may be addressed to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

1. www.psgr.org.nz; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

2. www.quaker.org.nz/contact/how-to-donate-to-us

3. www.amnesty.org.nz; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Subcategories

old LINK

For over 20 years the Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand Charitable Trust (PSGR) has produced reports and submitted to government Bills and Inquiries.

We’ve been extraordinarily busy over the past 2 years with our work.

This Update aims to inform members and colleagues – and act as a go-to summary of our recent work.

2022 UPDATE - PDF

As well as our recent work All PSGR’s submissions are available to the public on our Submissions pages. In addition, we are now on LinkedIn, Twitter, Odysee & Instagram.

MEMBERSHIP

Please – without your support and membership PSGR cannot do this work. We’ve kept our fees deliberately low because your membership is important to us.

MOVING FORWARD 2022+

The PSGR recognise that the perspectives that have been expressed by the PSGR from 2020 onwards will not necessarily reflect the perspectives of all trustees and all members.

However, we sincerely hope that PSGR’s perspectives are more likely to reflect the perspectives of the majority of our membership and of collegial organisations – which represents a diverse quorum of inquiring minds.

We hope that we have demonstrated a consistency to our work, that reflects and upholds the principles reflected in 20 years of research, information communications and submissions to policy

Reports and Papers

Royal Commission

Page 4 of 4

Start
Prev
1
2
3
4
Next
End