Public opinion on the use of gene technology to solve environmental problems

Addressing public concerns about the suitability and safety of new innovations is essential for the responsible use of genetic technologies to address environmental issues, according to a new report on New Zealanders’ views commissioned by the BioHeritage National Science Challenge.

The national study found a wide range of views on how to appropriately apply genetic technologies for conservation and environmental purposes and what precautions should be considered.

The authors of the book, A National Dialogue on Genetic Technologies for Environmental Purposes: Using the Deliberative Process to Gather Views from across New Zealand, say that with the New Zealand government recently confirming plans to end New Zealand’s 30-year ban on genetic modification, or GMOs, outside of a laboratory by 2026, policymakers, scientists, regulators and politicians should be paying attention to public attitudes.

Nearly 400 people across the country took part in surveys, workshops and discussions conducted by social scientists from the Universities of Auckland and Otago, and the Māori biodiversity network Te Tira Whakamātaki (TTW). Dr Vicki Macknight from the University of Otago said the research heard and analysed the views of New Zealanders from Northland to Rakiura, including Māori communities, non-GMO and organic organisations and university students.

“Even if initially participants feel they don’t know enough about these emerging technologies, the workshop is designed to expand their confidence, so everyone can freely express their views, enabling a more informed discussion about the potential and risks of genetic technologies.”

The groups had to agree on appropriate pest and weed control tools and the necessary considerations for implementing them for four different environmental problems. Participants considered using RNA interference (RNAi), also known as gene silencing, to address myrtle rust affecting native trees, the bee parasite Varroa mite, gene editing for self-seeding invasive wild pines, and gene drive control for rats.

Nearly half of public groups supported RNAi as an alternative to fungicides for myrtle rust control, with participants advising caution with regulatory controls, implementation, and monitoring for any off-target effects. While RNAi was considered preferable to genetic modification, support for RNAi against Varroa mites was more conservative, with groups offering only tentative and conditional support, weighing commercial, human health, and ecological risks.

Gene editing of wild pine trees gained support, but there were concerns about the ecological impacts of genetically modified pine trees. The most notable skepticism was about gene drive technology in mice, with participants highlighting uncertainties about its environmental, technical and ethical impacts.

Dr Fabien Medvecky from the University of Otago, now at the Australian National University, said the findings showed public concern tended to focus on social, economic and environmental factors rather than the technology itself.

“Support for these technologies is influenced more by their wider impact and regulatory oversight. There is strong support for high levels of regulation and oversight to ensure safe and responsible use.

“Policy makers should take note of our analysis of the discussion as they consider the potential of genetic technologies in the natural environment to better understand what safe and responsible innovation means for New Zealanders.”

The TTW report notes in part that Māori views gathered through national surveys and focus groups reveal unease about the unknowns associated with genetic technologies.

“There is caution around some applications. There remain significant concerns about the unknown consequences, ecological impacts and ethical implications of synthetic biology, including regulation through whakapapa (family trees) and tikanga (cultural protocols). Continued engagement with Māori communities is critical, and widespread education about these tools is necessary for all people living in New Zealand.”

Two special interest groups also provided valuable insights, with members of the non-GMO and organic GMO communities expressing concerns about the control and management of genetic technology, although some acknowledged the potential benefits of genetic technology, such as reduced use of toxins. University students showed greater enthusiasm for genetic technology, but participants called for careful regulation and monitoring.

Dr Marie McEntee from the University of Auckland said the research highlighted the value of engaging in national conversations to better understand what safe and responsible innovation means for New Zealanders. “These discussions help policymakers grasp different perspectives and navigate the complexities of genetic technologies. Ultimately, we need to foster open dialogue to shape the future of our environment in ways that reflect our shared values ​​and concerns.”