In a recent article published in the New Zealand Herald, scientists from the University of Auckland claim that pest population modelling shows that New Zealand will not be able to reach the goals of Predator-free 2050 unless it implements genetic technology tools for pest control.
These new genetic technologies could be used to produce a ‘trojan female’, a technique that would make male offspring infertile. Other tools, currently ruled out by the government, include gene drives or gene silencing. The New Zealand Herald article says that community buy-in will be critical for rolling out these technologies.
We have a lot of questions about this. Here are some of them:
Who should be involved in making decisions about which technologies should be used?
What factors might communities be considering as they think through this issue?
Is ‘community buy-in’ the right aim, or would it be better to change our language, and aim for public risk assessment, society-science alliances, or something else?
What other options do we have, and what would the trade-offs and risks be?
How can we help people to think and talk about this, so that everyone feels empowered to have a voice?
This proposed release of genetic technologies into the wild is a complex problem, and one that many New Zealanders will feel strongly about. You might feel:
excitement at the possibilities for helping our native species
concern about how the technologies and impacts would be managed
fear that changes can’t be reversed, or
confusion at the technical terms involved.
Or do you think and feel something else? We’d love to hear how you think and feel about this so please tell us by leaving a comment below.
Maybe Predator Free 2050 think the ends justifies the means but when you take this stance it risks minimising critical evaluation of the risks and rewards and the costs and benefits of the proposed action and the whole question becomes a political football where views become entrenched and positions become polarised in a rush to simplify the complexity of the issue to a Yes / No dichotomy.
Instead we should have a discussion about the proposal, evaluate the pros and cons, consider all the alternatives and if the means justifies the end then, and only then, should we move forward on the proviso that should unexpected information come to light the whole process will be re-evaluated.
It should not be…