Whangarei

Date: 25th February 2004
Venue: A'fare Conference Lounge, Whangarei

• The Council's report must be consistent with hui feedback. There is to be no sifting of feedback.
• The Bioethics Council needs teeth. There needs to be long term commitment to advocacy on behalf of the community regarding bioethics issues.
• The Royal Commission has let us down. It has resulted in bureaucratic mechanisms removed from the perspective of the wider community.
• What will be the status of the hui report? Will the Minister of the Environment place any weighting or value on the report?
• Will the Council be engaging in further dialogue regarding other genetic technology development? It should.
• How will the Council capture the essence or wairua of the korero? How will we ensure accurate reflection of the issues?
• Consultation has huge implications for participants who sacrifice their own time, travel for hours and other significant cost in time and travel. There is no reciprocity in this process.
• How committed is the Council? Is there a level of complacency in advancing community expectations?
• This science is already happening.
• How can people refuse insulin that has been modified with human genes? All insulin will eventually be modified. Soon we will have no choice.
• In science there are many voices that highlight the risks of this technology. We need to educate ourselves on the downside of this technology.
• We can all continue to be proactive. There is enough information currently that shows that we need to stop and take stock.
• Has the Council taken stock of what is happening? Have other government agencies? Some agencies have developed policies on the co-existence of GM and non-GM.
• Who are they using to benchmark against New Zealand in the use of this technology?
• To what extent can there be co-existence between GM and non-GM? Government has its own bias about what is acceptable in terms of co-existence.
• What is happening in the education system? There is a risk that our young people become indoctrinated through the education system by one particular pro-gene modification perspective. The council has a key role to ensure balance within our education system.
• I do not agree with any use of genes in other organisms. It has a huge impact on my whakapapa.
• I am frustrated at the lack of participation from the council. They are resourced and are doing some work in this area yet they are not participating in this forum.
• Māori can come from a different perspective through whakapapa. We all come from different perspectives, but whakapapa links to humanity. Whakapapa cuts across both races and technology.
• Is this technology based on greed and not need? It is based on the desire to control?
• Not only do I own land, I am one with it. I have no desire for this to happen within my community. We have no information that is digestible within communities.
• Education is vital. But who will educate? What is the commitment to educating and engaging young people and communities?
• There are a whole array of risks. Social engineering could be the outcome. The world of the unknown is a huge concern. What else is being done? What will be the impact on humanity and different races?
• There are severe side effects from GM amongst plants. There is no economic benefit.
• HGM is obscene. Science is not perfect. They can mutate. The whole technology is sick.
• What are the risks? Pandemics from ducks, to cats to humans.
• The Council has to be listened to. The whole genetic movement is not listened to.
• The risk is too big for us to consider.
• It is a human characteristic to pursue knowledge. Money is another driver.
• Science is driven by corporations whose purpose is to make money.
• The alternatives to HGM are not being supported.
• This is an oppression driven by the private sector and supported by government.
• Question: How do you respond to a parent who depends on this technology for the well being of their child?
• Response: Treat such patients overseas. Don't bring this technology here.
• Neurological Society sees this technology as pie in the sky.
• Patenting of genes could lead to the patenting of an indigenous people. This will inhibit the future of indigenous people. The GM sector will patent genes retrospectively. It will nullify whakapapa.
• Human gene transfer for ownership. There is a potential that future generations could be owned.
• Compare NZ with what is happening internationally. Government is investing heavily in biotechnology.

Te Rarawa

• Without our whakapapa, we are nothing. There must not be any genetic transfer. Don't do it. Western technology is very experimental. Indigenous technology is retrospective.
• Not enough funding of alternatives. Not enough education and promotion of alternatives.
• What do you say to a whanau that has a gene in the whakapapa that induces cancer that has resulted in eight whanau members losing their lives early? This whanau might want to change the cancer causing gene. But what about toxins and diet? Are there options other than genetic manipulation?

PM Session

As a biotechnology researcher, I want to continue this research. What is the response of this hui?

• Keep it in the lab.
• There may be some advantage, but exercise extreme caution.
• Understanding and looking is different to manipulation. We do not need to interfere with and transfer human genes. That is where I draw the line. There are ways that GM can be used to trace illness and disease without interfering.
• Whakapapa is who we are and what makes us human. We are lucky to be human. There is no future for human gene transfer. I come from a family affected by diabetes. Whakapapa connects us to each other, it holds mana; it is our life force.
• Is there management of this technology? Kaitiakitanga is for the benefit of all. This is more than management and stewardship.
• Māori have traditionally held kaitiakitanga. Anybody else is welcome to join Māori in that role.
• How can we manage where there are no anchors and no parameters? Management needs to be determined by what is right and what is wrong.
• There are other ethics committees. Academics and scientists heavily bias some memberships on these committees. This is wrong. The public and community perspective needs to be foremost. There is a danger that the Bioethics Council is captured by one perspective.
• Need to believe that scientists will be influenced by community concerns. An example is the fact that an alternative to blood transfusion was developed for Jehovah's Witnesses.
• If government was to withdraw money from GM experimentation it could shift government funding to other areas.
• The existing management regime for Biotechnology is the Free Market.
• Biotechnology is one of three key growth and innovation strategies for development. $600m investment.
• All key government ministries are ad hoc in their provisions of advice on Biotechnology. There needs to be a whole of government perspective that reflects the community perspective.
• Why are we providing this level of feedback through this arm of government, only to be contradicted by another part of government?
• Māori need to play a role as kaitiaki, mentor and auditor.
• Māori science is about the divine senses, what we see, smell and feel.
• Māori need to measure the quality and level of performance of all involved in this technology.
• Free market is human ingenuity using greed; me, me or I need more. This is the reality of human kind. This is difficult to achieve.
• We must be united, put in place controls and err on the safe side.
• Universities depend on non-government funding. Research is now driven by free-market agendas. We need to work hard to promote change.
• What is the difference between an ass and a donkey? One is sterile. The potential of gene transfer is sterility.
• Knowledge is the dawn of understanding. Understanding is the beginning of tolerance.
• Are we spiritual beings or are we just biological entities? We have a secular state that sees me more as biological than spiritual.
• University science papers should be provided in tandem with other values based papers.
• Unless we have a clear strategy, our natural immune cells are in danger of becoming subverted. Nature may cease to evolve.
• If this technology does go wrong what are the legal implications?
• So if we're going to play god, I can't see which part of the community will benefit from that.
• We need to think outside of the square in terms of advocacy and that the Council will work to influence outside of the usual government process. We have to influence government and science to tai ho.
• Government takes advantage of the fact that many people cannot actively participate in their types of processes.
• Belgium have extended their ban on the release of GM organisms; the key reason being the lack of legal protection should anything go wrong.
• Power currently rests with government and the scientific community. They manipulate not only our genes but also our emotions and use the fear of death and pain as part of this. (Quality of life). In the natural world things die. Have we as humans risen above the natural world?
• Our existence is becoming a matter of our own convenience. We are spiritual people with a particular human experience. We have become spiritually weakened because we fear death.
• Any food that contains GE must be labelled.
• $600m is being spent on biotechnology. No investment in co-existence. Minority is determining what should happen for the majority.
• Council should ask who is driving the agenda of biotechnology?
• People who are pro-biotechnology are now positioned in strategic places. How do we place ourselves strategically?
• Māori have been at the forefront of balancing this issue

[ Previous page | Next page ]