Genetic Modification and the AEBC

Matthew Freeman

 In the last issue of the GS newsletter Pat Heslop-Harrison wrote about the public GMO debate and in particular about the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report ‘Genetically Modified Crops’. One of its conclusions that he took issue with was the apparently vague recommendation that an ‘over-arching, independent biotechnology advisory committee’ should be established. He appeared to suggest that this was impractical and unrealistic on the grounds that it would be difficult to find the right people for such a body and equally hard to know how it should operate.

He’s right: it is a tricky problem, but one that has been attempted. The Government has this year set up the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) and I am a member of it.

In fact the AEBC is a response to a government strategic review of the framework for overseeing developments in biotechnology. The Nuffield Council was not alone in concluding that although there were effective specific regulatory bodies, there was no mechanism for looking at the whole picture of genetic modification — the science, the policy and the ethics. The AEBC is actually only one third of the proposed answer, having two better-known sister commissions, the Human Genetics Commission and the Food Standards Agency.

The AEBC has twenty members including independent scientists, senior members of various environmental pressure groups, ethicists, members of the biotech industry, lawyers and lay people (the list is on the website Ñ see below). The daunting task of chairing this disparate and opinionated group has fallen upon Malcolm Grant, Professor of Land Economy at Cambridge, a barrister with expertise in planning law. We are supported by a team of five civil servants based in the Office of Science and Technology.

Interestingly, we have a free hand at how we go about our job and even in defining exactly what our job should be. Our terms of reference are to provide strategic advice to Government on all aspects of biotechnology that do not fall into the remit of our sister commissions (in practice this principally means GM crops, animals and bacteria, and the environmental, agricultural, ethical and social implications of their development); to scan the horizon for new developments; to identify gaps in the existing regulatory regimes; and to do all this (and more) in a transparent way that seeks to address the concerns of the public and of ‘stakeholders’. A tall order.

Until now, the Commission has only had two formal meetings and the goals of these have been relatively modest. The first has been to build a rapport and level of trust between individual commissioners. In a debate that has become so polarised and heated this is an important first step as many of the individuals on the commission have been publicly involved in one side or the other of the fight. The second goal we have achieved is to develop a draft of a workplan — what we actually hope to achieve over the first year or two of the commission’s life.

This was published in late September, which was the moment when we realised that the honeymoon was over. The Daily Mail, the most vociferously anti-GM paper, ran a banner front-page headline: “Warning over GM animals immune to pain”.

In fact, this piece of ‘news’ was based simply on our decision that animal GM was a topic that we should make a high priority for study. Our other initial main priorities are an investigation into the twin issues of the farm scale evaluations and the way in which potential gene flow issues have been incorporated into the regulatory process, as well as the establishment of a horizon-scanning exercise for new developments.

We also intend to look into how consumer choice has influenced or could influence decision making; bioremediation; and the issue of liability — who pays for any damage caused by GM products? This workplan has been published as a consultation document and anyone is welcome to comment. The first phase of consultation will be complete by December 31st but really we see this as an ever-evolving document and input will always be welcome.

And that is a key point. One of the primary aims of the commission is to involve the public and stakeholders as much as possible. All the minutes of our meetings, as well as background papers and agendas of forthcoming meetings, are available at the AEBC website. Many of our meetings will be open to the public. And we are trying to build a comprehensive list of interested individuals and organisations to whom we can turn when we need to consult. Furthermore, all our advice to Government will be made public.

What can the AEBC deliver? Will it be an irrelevant talking shop? The answer is that we can’t yet tell, but the signs are moderately encouraging. In practice, Government will find it difficult to ignore the public advice of its own commission, so we do have some real political clout. And despite the disparate views of the commissioners there is unanimity about the significance of our task. The issues surrounding GMOs are some of the most important (and toughest) that we have to face over the coming years. The public needs to feel that there is an over-arching source of advice that can guide the otherwise piecemeal approach to genetic modification. Of course it is early days, but from my perspective of having watched this commission come to life over the last few months, I am hopeful that it will become the lynch-pin of biotechnology advice to Government.

In Pat Heslop-Harrison’s piece he made the point that, as geneticists, we all have an important role in this public debate. I agree. Science is not the only issue at stake but it is the foundation of rational decision making about GMOs and without it, sensible and safe policies cannot be developed. So we, the AEBC, need you. The genetics community has a great potential for informing our work and I appeal to you to look at the AEBC website and play an active part in helping us to give the right advice on these hugely important but controversial issues.

AEBC - www.aebc.gov.uk

Matthew Freeman works on intercellular signalling in Drosophila at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge. He is a member of the Genetics Society committee.