Home

SCIENCE ADVOCACY FOR HUMAN & ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ... IN SERVICE OF THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO BE INDEPENDENTLY INFORMED.

Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR) work to produce transparent, high quality science information to educate and inform the public. You might not know us - but we've been working on these issues for 25 years! We respond to consultations on new policy and legislation, release white papers and reports, and interview scientists and doctors whose work draws attention to complex scientific issues - that are often not easily inserted into and indeed, are often missing from, government policy.

PSGR place the public interest, and the obligation to protect future generations at the centre of all research and decision-making. To do this involves thinking about how society identify problems in the first place, and then permits meaningful discourse around normal challenges, such as uncertainty and ambiguity in information flows.

PSGR 'wade into' human and environmental health issues that are polarised and controversial. These issues are not well covered by MSM. Why are they controversial? Because they concern human life - and the impact of technology on our health. As humans we interact with a lot of technologies and a lot of substances - so life is - and must be - political!

JUST RELEASED APRIL 2025:

April 27, 2025 - PSGR's submission to the Royal Commission COVID-19 Lessons Learned, Phase 2 Consultation.

THE 'HIJACKING DEMOCRACY' PAPERS

April 16, 2025 - PRESS RELEASE: Has MBIE short-circuited good process in recent government reforms?

PSGR (2025) When powerful agencies hijack democratic systems. Part I: The case of gene technology regulatory reform. Bruning, J.R., Dommisse, E.. Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand. ISBN 978-1-0670678-0-9
PSGR (2025) When powerful agencies hijack democratic systems. Part II: The case of science system reform. Bruning, J.R.. Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand. April 2025. ISBN 978-1-0670678-1-6

PSGR have written to the Ombudsman asking that they convene a public inquiry to assess whether officials directly undermined public law conventions and processes to pursue policies and laws in favour of the deregulation of gene editing technology. PSGR have emailed members of Parliament to advise them of the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Why? Read our Part I paper: The case of gene technology regulatory reform.

PSGR are also calling for a ‘transparent and public inquiry’ that can (a) identify the factors leading to the collapse of the capacity of New Zealand’s research, science, innovation and technology system to be adequately resourced to meet the objectives of society at large; and (b) recommend how to transform it into having that capacity, and in doing so serve the public purpose and support the wellbeing of New Zealand, her people, resources and environment.

Why? Read our Part II paper: The case of science system reform.

PSGR's strategic direction is underpinned by legal principles and/or fields of law (including particularly public law) that support decision-making in the public interest so that future generations may be protected.

If society draws attention to risk from a technology or a substance, there is a financial threat to the corporations that have that technology or substance on the market, or a political threat to the government institutions whose policies say that a technology or substance is beneficial, safe and effective. But for democracy to work, the scientific and technical information used to justify that the tech, or the policy promoting that a tech is safe must be evidence-based. It must be transparent and accountable, and the public must see how the decision was made. Being evidence-based includes updating the evidence as the scientific data on risk changes.

Some of the issues PSGR talk about: fluoride, pesticides and regulatory failure (e.g. glyphosate and chlorpyrifos), the evidence that ultraprocessed food is addictive, antidepressant risk in pregnancy, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and why gene edited techniques and organisms are not as safe as authorities imagine. If governments don't use impartial evidence when they're making a decision about a technology or substance, the public really can't trust the data because of the conflicts of interest in the data that is used. When industry-made data (that is secret and confidential) is used to justify keeping a product on the market, perhaps it is more like a form of propaganda?

Democracies have rules and principles in place to ensure that government officials follow good process, and act in the public interest. Important democratic principles can be undermined, and values set aside. Corporate data can be preferred, even if it is secret. The job for society is to stop this happening and to be keenly aware on regulatory capture. People need to step in when officials start to pretend that they do not have to be transparent and accountable, fair and just.

Working out when a technology or substance produces harm, to a small child or an adult, is a difficult process because harm can be acute (immediate) or chronic (slow moving and more difficult to detect). How do decision-makers, scientists and researchers problematise, weigh and consider issues that might be uncertain or ambiguous? How this is undertaken is a reflection of the culture, power-relations and resourcing that surrounds them. It can be easier for an under-funded regulator to default to old, corporate data. If nuanced or difficult issues are dismissed or ignored; and there is no language of probability, risk or precaution, society can end up ignorant - such as failing to understand when an (economic, biological, ecological, political or social) tipping point might be arrived at. Good decisions that support health and resilience require broad-based social, scientific and economic information, recognition of power and politics, and value-based judgement. Talking about these issues can help society understand what our values are and prioritise what is important.

There is a substantial volume of legal literature that underpins and support scientific decision-making in the public interest, these include the precautionary principle, administrative principles of law and the emerging field of earth jurisprudence.

These principles support and reinforce complex decision-making to protect and sustain human and environmental health and the biological integrity of the land, water, food and technology that we depend on.

Our research and educational role focusses on drawing public attention to both human health and ecosystem risks from unanticipated effects of new technologies or environmental pollution. For example, such damage may adversely impact on a genome - whether plant, animal, micro-organism or other - and have the potential to create adverse, unanticipated, and inter-generational consequences that cannot be reversed.

Health risk is not limited to heritability: twenty-first century science continues to unpack the role of environmental influences that impact genetic function. Our work includes research to advance education about assisting body systems to work effectively while minimising their exposure from environmental harms.

It is becoming evident that subtle (and not so subtle) epigenetic modifications to the genome - which does not damage the gene but negatively alters the way the gene functions - play a substantial part in genetic health, because epigenetic regulation influences all biological processes.

Such modifications may arise from pollution, toxicity, nutritional stress, a disrupted gut microbiome and mental stress.

PSGR makes every effort for the data considered in analyses to be unbiased and trustworthy, giving due weight to the precautionary principle and the public interest. That involves making special effort to pay particular attention to evidence-based research that is produced by independent scientists and researchers who are motivated to sustain ecosystem and human health.

The current accelerating erosion of ecosystem and human health might, on the evidence, be assigned reasonably to 'market-science', rather than public interest science.

In recent decades much of government-financed public interest science has declined rapidly: that has led to dominance of 'market-science' because scientists have become funded predominantly from market players and the profession is predominantly dependent on that market funding for its survival.

PSGR welcomes new members - even if you are not scientists or doctors!

FIND US ON LINKEDIN, SUBSTACK (@PSGRNZ), TWITTER (@PSGRNZ), INSTAGRAM (@PSGRNZ), ODYSEE (@PSGR) & YOUTUBE (@PSGRNZ).

The information, submissions and other contents on this website are provided by PSGR in the public interest and for professional scientific and medical discussion. This does not imply that all of the views expressed are held by all Trustees. Links to other sources of information do not imply an endorsement by PSGR of that organisation.

Who we are

JUST RELEASED APRIL 2025:

THE 'HIJACKING DEMOCRACY' PAPERS

PSGR's strategic direction is underpinned by legal principles and/or fields of law (including particularly public law) that support decision-making in the public interest so that future generations may be protected.

Information

Providing scientific & medical information & analysis in the service of the public's right to be independently informed on issues relating to human & environmental health.