Claims made by gene technology opponents in arguments surrounding the Gene Tech Bill suggesting gene-editing of plants could occur via open spraying in the field, have been derided and debunked in a scientific article penned by several of New Zealand’s pre-eminent genetic scientists.

During the heat of the parliamentary select committee hearings on the Gene Tech Bill, a paper published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety co-authored by Prof. Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, that ‘predicted multispecies unintended effects from outdoor genome editing’ was used in evidence against the Bill.

Now, the respected NZ and international geneticists have jointly published a response with analysis of the state of the science surrounding gene editing, that lambasts claims gene editing of plants could occur via open spraying in the field as “fanciful, incorrect and misleading”.

Dr William Rolleston, Chair of the Life Sciences Network says ‘the latest paper penned jointly by the scientific group raises warnings for decision makers.’

The scientists say:

“The scenarios presented by Hoepers et al. (2024) are so fundamentally disconnected from biological and agricultural reality that they cannot contribute meaningfully to risk assessment or regulatory discussions. By focusing regulatory and public attention on biologically implausible applications, the paper potentially undermines understanding of gene editing and diverts limited regulatory resources away from evidence-based assessment of actual applications. Credible scientific discourse on biotechnology regulation must be grounded in biological feasibility and technological reality, not in scenarios that contradict fundamental principles of cellular biology, molecular delivery, and agricultural economics.”

In 2001 the Green Party had to apologize to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification when one of their star witnesses, Dr Elaine Ingham, then a scientist on the faculty of Oregon State University, extrapolated data and used fabricated references to claim (unsupported by the evidence) that a genetically modified Klebsiella planticola had been approved for field testing and could wipe out all terrestrial plant life in North America.

Dr Rolleston says ‘scientists have a responsibility to identify when they are speaking as an activist or outside their area of expertise.

‘Speculative claims presented as scientific evidence at the Select Committee hearings, undermine public debate and the Parliamentary process on what is a critical issue for New Zealand.’

Further, Dr. Rolleston emphasizes that ‘it’s imperative, if the Select Committee are to come to robust conclusions, that they have mechanisms to ensure their deliberations are based on sound science and evidence.’

A version of this article was originally posted at the New Zealand Life Sciences Network and is reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit both the GLP and original article.