Informed debate of GE a fine thing

By Associate Professor Allan Blackman

This article was orignally published in the Otago Daily Times on Thursday 8 August 2002.

---

The general election on July 27 was the culmination of one of the most extraordinary election campaigns in New Zealand's history.

We're usually treated to a steady diet of such topics as law and order, unemployment, health and education during the weeks preceding an election, but few would have thought that a scientific issue would dominate the entire campaign.

The so-called "corngate" saga had its roots in Nicky Hager's book, and allegations of a Government cover-up over supposedly GM-contaminated corn seed were seized upon by media organisations and the opposition political parties alike.

As a result of the extensive coverage thus afforded this issue, it seemed that pretty much everyone in the country had an opinion on the merits or otherwise of GM.

And given the election result, it's fair to say that the question of GM will continue to be an important issue for the country, especially next year when the moratorium is due to be lifted.

I'm sure that most of you reading this have an opinion on the GM question. But how many of you could put your hand on your heart and honestly say you know what a gene is? Not what it does, but what it actually is?

Because surely central to an appreciation of the possible dangers and/or benefits of GM is an understanding of the gene itself, at the most fundamental level.

And I hope that it's not too arrogant of me to suggest that the only people with such an understanding are scientists with a background in genetics (of which, I hasten to say, I am not one).

It is thanks to these people that we know as much as we do about genes.

In order for these highly skilled and experienced scientists to impart their knowledge to politicians, the media and the general public, they need to be able to speak to them, and herein lies a potential problem.

Given the fact that scientific language can rarely be understood by anyone not having the appropriate training, it can be difficult, if not impossible, for scientists to adequately explain their science to a lay-audience.

Scientists can simplify their language somewhat, but must be careful not to oversimplify.

To complicate matters still further, there appears to be an inherent distrust of scientists among sections of the population, with some being very reluctant to believe anything a scientist has to say.

This was amply demonstrated during the corngate saga, with the anti-GM faction refusing to listen to the scientific arguments of Dr Russell Poulter, of the University of Otago, an expert in the area of genetics.

So what's all this got to do with chemistry?

Well, I was planning to discuss the GM question from another angle in this month's column, and try to explain the chemistry of the gene.

I was going to tell you about the molecules from which genes are constructed — the purines and the pyrimidines. I was even going to try and talk about the remarkable science that is involved in GM — the way in which we can alter DNA with astonishing specificity.

But it would have been impossible for me to do this subject justice in my allocated space. So consider this a plea from me: if you have an interest in the GM question (and who doesn't?), then do a bit of background research - read the appropriate section in any science textbook, talk to a scientist who knows something about genetics, or even surf the Internet (a good starting point is http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/).

For then, and only then, can you begin to appreciate exactly what is involved in this most remarkable and topical of sciences.

And then, make up your own mind.