Human genes in other organisms

Introduction

In choosing the subject of the cultural, ethical and spiritual dimensions of the use of human genes in other organisms, the Council was embarking on a subject that questioned the very foundation of our existence; what is it to be human?

The Council decided to pursue this subject for a number of reasons. The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification report had suggested that it raised concerns which were yet to be resolved. The matter had also come before the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) in relation to applications to use human genes in sheep and cattle.

There are also a number of other rapidly emerging biotechnologies that involve the biotechnology and ensure that the movement of biological material between species. The material may be tissues, cells or gametes. The Bioethics Council considered that a discussion on the use of human genes in other organisms might highlight issues that need to be considered around some other biotechnologies.

The Council recognised that biotechnology is developing very quickly and raises important issues which need to be explored thoroughly by New Zealanders. To facilitate this, the Bioethics Council introduced a dialogue method - an approach described in greater detail further on in this report. Dialogue events were carried out around the country from February to May 2004.

Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council was appointed by the Government in December 2002. The goal of the Bioethics Council is; "To enhance New Zealand's understanding of the cultural, ethical and spiritual aspects of biotechnology and ensure that the use of biotechnology has regard for the the values held by New Zealanders".

Description

The report describes the decisions made by the Council in developing this project, and the processes used for engaging with the public and identifying the key issues. It reports on what the Council heard. In doing so it also describes the context or framework that people brought to the dialogue, and the key values and principles that appear to underlie people's assessments of the technology and its possible uses.

The crux of the report presents both the Council's response to what it heard and the results of its own deliberations. It offers the Government a number of recommendations that relate to the use of human genes in other organisms, how to deal with additional and emerging biotechnologies, and identifies the negative social perceptions around the commercialisation of science (which emerged as an important issue).

Commentary

People brought a broad range of understandings to the dialogue; their understandings of the place of humans in the universe, cultural and biological concepts of what it means to be human, a concern to draw on history and personal experience and a strong appreciation of the connectedness of people with each other and with their environment.

Participants recognised the complexity of the issues and the danger of over simplifying or segmenting them. They emphasised the need for humility in addressing this complexity. For example, the Council conduded that while, in strictly scientific terms, it is difficult to sustain any distinction between a human gene and those from other organisms, many believe genes are more than chemicals. They also have cultural significance, they have become symbols of what we have inherited from our ancestors (as in the Māori concept of whakapapa) as well as symbols of the relationships we have with each other and with other forms of life. Because 'human genes' are a culturally (although not scientifically) significant group, their use in other organisms requires additional ethical considerations to those required for other genetic modifications.

The Council also heard enormous compassion for suffering in both humans and animals. There was wide acceptance of the use of human genes in other organisms for the relief of human suffering. However, the acceptability of the use of human genes in other organisms related not only to the effects of the technology, but the motivations behind that use. What was important is how our use of human genes demonstrates respect for what is special about human life. In a similar way, an assessment of risk needed to include not only the immediate biological impacts, but the wider impacts on social relationships, the distribution of benefits and profit, and the values and principles that shape our social life.

In a specific recommendation the Council opposed certain types of modification, most notably those that would give non-human organisms the capacity for human language and associated powers of reason, and those that would cause non-human organisms to look like humans. These types of modification of non-human organisms were seen as unacceptable over and above any suffering or discomfort they might cause the organism, or any general caution about the use of human genes. The report also recognised that more thought is necessary on the ethics of hybrids.

The Council considered that any manipulations in the first half of gestation or development that are likely to have effects in the second half of gestation, or after birth or hatching, should be subject to ethical review. There was also considerable scepticism expressed about the role of commerce in science. The Council recommended research and promotion of a public conversation about the role of commerce in science and the contribution of science to the public good.

[ Previous Page | Next Page ]