Christchurch

Date: 11 March 2004
Venue: Nga Hau E Wha Marae, 250 Pages Rd, Christchurch

• The role and membership of Council. The issue of tikanga and science.
• The medical benefits are potentially there. There is also the issue of dramatic change. There are also trans-species issues. Humans live in close proximity to animals.
• There are big benefits for general health.
• We have to keep this within close confines. We look at previous scientific developments, for example, chemical developments such as DDT or the release of rabbits and possums.
• I don't want genetic modified materials loose in the environment when we can foresee the consequences. We cannot reverse the consequences.
• We cannot foresee the future. All our moves forward are attempts to see the future. Are we going to have no innovations?
• Human gene transfer doesn't benefit the community, it benefits the large corporations, for example, the use of genes from human umbilical cords.
• There have been cures for human disease developed over the last 1000 years without human gene transfer.
• The opportunity cost as a result of the focus on human gene technology as opposed to whole system research. $500m of biotech research have produced no returns.
• What is driving us to research one area of science and not another?
• Viruses mutate and evolve so fast. SARS and other more recent viruses have evolved much more quickly than human kind is evolving. This technology may assist us to control these new viruses.
• China is a breeding ground for inter-species disease, with animals and human being in such close proximity.
• Mauri is a life force. The koru, the way something comes into itself. It's the individual mystery personified in young children. Human gene transfer will affect the way this mauri is expressed.
• Human genes into other organisms is one issue, but there is also the issue of genes from other species coming back to humans.
• Why are they doing it and what will we get back? And what about the impact of this on future generations?
• There already are about 200 medicines that are based on genetically modified materials.
• What is the value of individual life versus the potential for medicines that may save lives?
• Ko Cow raua ko sheep aku tamariki. The impact on mauri and whakapapa. I am concerned about the dilution of mauri.
• I am cynical about the argument that this technology will cure diabetes or other diseases. I am cynical about the corporate business agenda. What other sciences could provide the same benefit?
• Research on diabetes is underway in Christchurch. One hundred participants are in the trial, approximately five Māori.
• We don't want our genes modified scientifically in other species. Everybody has a mauri. The mauri is tapu. All people have a mauri, and this mauri is tapu.
• People have to respect the different points of view on this issue. There cannot be a 'we are right' and 'you are wrong'.
• The mauri continues on after death.
• Not all Pakeha subscribe to the Western science perspective. Western science has separated the spiritual and biological.
• An elder described the mauri as a song and impact on the mauri creates disharmony.
• It's a mechanistic approach to things, as opposed to the whole. We are all part of the whole.
• Mauri is not a static concept. It is dynamic and evolves.
• The evidence stays the same yet it continues to evolve, is this consistent? Yes for me it is; nothing in life remains static.
• Is there a beginning of the mauri? Where is the beginning?
• We have now brought time into the discussion. I have a daughter who is 50% Māori. She has Māori blood and genes. She is brought up in a Pakeha household. One day she is predominantly Māori, one day predominantly Pakeha. What is predominantly Māori?
• The debate has now shifted to what is Māori. For me Māori is whakapapa and I'll leave it at that.

Mauri ora and Mauri mate

• Is the concept of Mauri confined to human kind? All things have mauri.
• We are all linked biologically. If we fiddle with that the risks are high because we still really don't know what we are doing.
• Why fix it if it isn't broke? We need to have our precautions ready. What if those precautions mean breaking a whole lot of other things?
• Another perspective is to look at the cause, for example in diabetes. This technology takes away the focus from the cause. It shifts the debate from the core issue of how we relate to each other and to our environment. The potential for pollution from this technology is huge; we may not be able to retract.
• We have gone beyond the point of natural balance. If some of the Asian and American based disease hits New Zealand, the impact could be huge.
• There are potential risks to us of not properly weighing up the cost benefits.
• There are more options than just the cost/benefit analysis.
• Is there such a thing as safe?
• If we start from a Māori world view, we need to define tikanga, mauri and other terms. Otherwise it would be left to government to define.
• My understanding of mauri is life force. From conception, from birth, the mauri draws you to do things as you grow and develop.
• There is a distinction here between mauri, i.e., what draws you to do something or perform an action.
• Is this an evolution of what we would have done anyway? No, in that a salmon and a strawberry would probably not have copulated.
• Mauri is tapu. You have some form of integrity.
• Previously, any inter-breeding, cross breeding was external. We are now going internal. This is a radical shift. No one can predict the outcomes.
• All things change, are in constant change. Are there any boundaries within this existence of fluidity and change?
• It comes down to your underlying spiritual beliefs.
• Nihilism - Developing technologies to combat the inevitable. Whakapapa is about trusting your world, the world you live in.
• What is driving genetic modification? What are the motivations behind the development of this technology?
• There aren't clear boundaries. It relies on one's ethics and beliefs. We need to properly exercise the freedom to make the right decisions.
• What world view are we holding to as good? There are pragmatic assumptions but from my perspective they are not necessarily good.
• Incest and inbreeding were really taboo when I was a young fella. I understand this is because of gene transfer.
• The issue with transfer is what the purpose is.
• The issue of taking a copy of a gene is a red herring. The process is not the point, the gene copy is still the gene information, it is still the same whakapapa.
• What is the implication of gene transfer? Do copies take anything away from the gene pool? Has it lost its mauri? The gene lives in the cell, that's its community.
• There are some forms of natural copying, for example copulation; copulation is not copying.
• Tupuna and the taking of photographs - Did this take away the mauri. The issue was the purpose; in what way would the image be used.
• When you draw boundaries it requires responsibilities. Māori draw boundaries. Different cultures have different boundaries.
• We shouldn't pretend there are no boundaries. We have boundaries around us everyday. New technology needs boundaries.
• The intention and motivations for this technology is money. If the motivation is economic gain then that motivation will determine how the technology is used.
• The choice of technology is an ethical question.
• What if a biotech company was to set up with the support and mandate of an iwi authority? Does this represent another motivation?
• You still need to ask the question: why this technology?
• It may be that you would want to test a range of technologies.

Ownership

• Who should decide? As a technology it has no boundaries. It needs to be a national decision at a national political level.
• There are questions about government.
• We can't leave it to the market. We have to have government oversight.
• We also need to consider the process for decisions.
• An application by the intending importer of the technology should be assessed by a panel of experts.
• The current ERMA process is costly and has resulted in the smuggling of native plants. Security costs need to be considered.
• This is an ethical issue rather than a technological issue.
• Decisions can be reached by consensus. Perhaps consensus by education?
• Māori need the opportunity to participate in the decision making process working alongside mana whenua.
• Need Māori expertise as part of the decision making process. This expertise exists across a broad field of Māori scientists. Such expertise would need to be able to consider moral, ethical and cultural issues.
• Options include keeping it in the lab or releasing it into the environment.
• When is it acceptable? Case by case basis.
• We need to be careful of the implications of the solution/remedy and be aware of the impact this technology may have on other areas of the environment.
• Linking scientific discovery with commercial interests.
• Ownership? The idea that we own our whakapapa. The misconstruing of the term kaitiakitanga as being one level down from ownership.
• Ownership as opposed to kaitiakitanga.
• Whatever we come up with, ownership will still rest with government.
• Ownership implies the ability to sell to the highest bidder. Ownership also implies rights of use.
• Māori need to confront this issue of ownership. There are going to be groups who will want ownership of these genes and this technology.
• Is ownership the correct terminology?
• In the global context, genes are patented (owned). How do you protect what Māori believe about genes without ownership?
• A group in Tasmania (GTG) is charging the Auckland Hospital Board $10m for the use of junk DNA.
• The international patenting process has significant implications for New Zealand.
• Most scientists are against the patenting of DNA.
• Is there DNA specific to one ethnic group, for example Māori? This is yet to be determined.

Summary

• Concerned the representation did not include other elders from this community.
• Thank you for the opportunity for dialogue.
• I didn't really say much, but I'll talk to others which I hope will have a roll on effect.
• I now have some idea.
• There were others who would have given a perspective on tikanga and mauri.
• I am glad I came. I don't mind if this technology is applied to Hauora science. Other than that, I don't agree.
• We should have had more of our people here. Our kaumatua and our ipoko should be here, they are our decision makers.
• I am glad I came and listened. The MWWC National Conference will be happening in Christchurch. It isn't easy to get our people to this.
• Thank you, this forum is a wonderful idea. This size hui is good for dialogue but it is a pity that more aren't here. We are all a bit polite at times and we need to put our views out there.
• We need to keep a close watch on this technology. Would also recommend the New Scientist publications.
• I have valued the korero today. We need more input into this issue. I am concerned about the effects of attempting to control life. The root causes of the world's problems need to be dealt with.
• Whilst it would have been great to have bigger numbers, this size group was good.
• It seems to be a foregone conclusion that this technology is going ahead anyway.
• Can't see why New Zealand is getting involved. Why can't we just purchase it once it has had the kinks knocked out of it?
• My interest is to explore these issues across many cultures. We have to love life and set up mechanisms to allow people to exercise choice. We need an avenue to continue this discussion on a local level.
• An amazing experience. I learnt more about a different world view. I know that what we say will be listened to.

[ Previous page | Next page ]