Conservation Minister Eugene Sage has ruled out genetic modification in the fight against pests:
Predator Free 2050 aims to rid New Zealand of the most damaging introduced predators by 2050, and has a number of government agencies involved in the plan including the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for Primary Industries.
But Predator Free 2050 is forbidden from carrying out any research which could lead to the use of genetic modification or gene editing, a letter written by Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage shows.
The letter of direction to Predator Free 2050 obtained by lobby group Life Sciences Network said its primary tasks were to invest in breakthrough scientific research, but not to research into genetically modified organisms and technologies or gene editing, and to raise funds for co-investment by other (non-government) parties, in landscape scale projects and breakthrough science, excluding any science involving genetic modification.
“Gene technologies are problematic and untested and have significant risks.” . .
This directive counters officials’ views that GE could be an alternative to 1080:
“It could be efficient and much more cost-effective method of pest control than conventional approaches.
“For potential application to replace knockdown tools such as aerial 1080, they would be most effective for short generation pests such as rodents, and less effective for longer generation pests such as stoats and possums, due to their requirement to spread over generations.” . .
The minister’s refusal to permit sciencetific exploration is rank stupidity.
It’s also hypocritical coming from a member of the party that exhorts everyone to accept the science on climate change.
But how much does the minister know about the science when the strongest opponents of GM food know the least and think they know the most?
The most extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least about science but believe they know the most, researchers have found.
The findings from public surveys in the US, France and Germany suggest that rather than being a barrier to the possession of strongly held views, ignorance of the matter at hand might better be described as a fuel.
“This is part and parcel of the psychology of extremism,” said Philip Fernbach, a researcher at the University of Colorado and co-author of the 2017 book The Knowledge Illusion. “To maintain these strong counter-scientific consensus views, you kind of have to have a lack of knowledge.” . .
Is the minister’s decision based on a lack of knowledge or just politics and emotion trumping science?
Whichever it is, a minister should not be shutting the door on scientific exploration.