Draft Position Statement - Genetically Modified Organisms The development and use of genetically modified organisms (GMO's) This position statement is based substantially on one developed by the Australasian Wildlife Management Society. The Australian Mammal Society gratefully acknowledges AWMS and its authors for permission to use it. The original statement can be viewed on the AWMS website at: http://www.awms.org/. You can comment on this draft position statement on the AMS Forum. Background Manipulation of the genetic code of living organisms is now common and the technology for uses in human and animal health, agriculture and silviculture, management of pest animals and for the exploitation and management of the environment is developing rapidly. Research and development in these fields has resulted in rapidly expanding capabilities and an increasing rate of planned releases of genetically modified organisms. Genetic manipulations may affect wildlife populations directly, GMO's may affect them secondarily, or more probably, the release of GMO's may affect wildlife indirectly through their effects on ecosystems and on the economics of agricultural systems. The effects on wild populations may be beneficial or detrimental. GMO's may help solve wildlife problems that are currently intractable, and may improve the efficacy or cost-efficiency of existing methods of managing wildlife. There may be risks associated with the production and use of GMO's. Some people consider genetic manipulation to be dangerous on the premise that the risks always outweigh the benefits and they oppose research on, and development, release and use of GMO's. Others consider the benefits to be paramount. Between these polarised views is the opinion that the benefits and risks need to be assessed for each product of genetic manipulation and that these products should not be excluded from release or use solely because of the process by which they were generated (Anon. 1992). Recognition of the potential risks and concern among scientists and the public has resulted in a system of regulation in many countries including Australia and New Zealand, but these are lacking in some developing countries, including Papua New Guinea. Concerns have been expressed that the lack of regulation in some developing countries may make them vulnerable to exploitation and the potentially adverse effects of GMO's that may be released without due safeguards or care by parties from developed countries. Furthermore, national boundaries do not exist for GMO's and they may spread by natural processes among and in to any jurisdiction or nation. In recognition of the potential for unintended or deliberate transfers between nations without appropriate information for safe handling or use, an International Biosafety Protocol is being developed as part of the International Convention on Biodiversity to regulate the transfer of GMO's across national boundaries (Anon. 1995). In adopting a position on these issues, AMS needs to account for the:- realities with respect to development and use of GMO's; regulation of their development and use; likely increased rate of release of GMO's; perceptions of risk among scientists and the public; concerns about international issues relating to the use of GMO's. Based on the above, The Australian Mammal Society : RECOGNISES that some objectives for the management of wildlife or ecosystems, although desirable, may be difficult to achieve because of inaccessibility, lack of suitable techniques and high cost, and alternative methods should be sought; RECOGNISES that techniques for genetically manipulating living organisms may help achieve some objectives for managing wildlife or ecosystems; ADVOCATES the use of techniques, including the genetic manipulation of living organisms, that are acceptably humane, effective, cost effective and present acceptably low risks of unintended or undesirable effects to achieve objectives in managing wildlife; ADVOCATES research into methods for managing wildlife, including research into the techniques and effects of genetic manipulation of living organisms, where the methods are acceptably humane, effective, cost effective and of low risk of undesirable effects; RECOGNISES that developing genetically-manipulated organisms and releasing them into the environment can have unintended or undesirable effects on target and non-target wildlife and in managed and unmanaged ecosystems; RECOGNISES that the public perceives the potential effects of developing genetically-manipulated organisms and releasing them into the environment as ranging from being of great benefit to great harm to human society, living organisms and ecosystems, and that scientists involved in such research should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that all relevant information flows freely to the public; ADVOCATES that all research into the genetic manipulation of living organisms to manage wildlife, while attempting to maximise the benefits of such research, should minimise the risks of undesirable or unintended effects on human society and on agricultural and wild ecosystems. This is to be achieved by adhering strictly to the relevant principles, guidelines or regulations, whether voluntary or mandatory, pertaining to the containment and release of genetically manipulated organisms, that the governments of Papua New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand respectively proclaim or adopt; ADVOCATES the mandatory regulation of containing and releasing genetically modified organisms and that such regulation be standardised among Papua New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand; and SUPPORTS in principle the establishment of an international biosafety protocol to regulate the movement of genetically modified organisms across international boundaries. References Anon. (1992). Genetic Manipulation: the threat or the glory. Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. February 1992. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Anon. (1995). Consideration of the need for and modalities of a biosafety protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Unpublished draft discussion paper, June 1995. Prepared by the Biosafety Sub-group of the Commonwealth Interdepartmental Committee on International Environment Issues. Australian Government Publisher, Canberra.