Those who ignore history, as the saying goes, are doomed to repeat it.

Phase Two of New Zealand’s Royal Commission into the government’s COVID response is now accepting public submissions, and on 17 February, submissions on the Gene Technology Bill close.

Proponents of liberalising the use of gene technology have no desire to wait for the results of the second phase of the COVID inquiry before shaping new legislation. This is concerning, especially considering the inquiry’s relevance to the future relationship between law and science. Phase Two explores the true risks and benefits of the government’s decisions regarding health orders, mandates and lockdowns.

And behind all these matters looms the elephant in the lab. Reputable experts are increasingly supporting the origin story that is hardest to swallow: Scientists who were experimenting with coronaviruses right where it emerged probably did create COVID.

Hope that a natural source may yet be discovered lingers, but even authorities who once dismissed the lab leak as a conspiracy theory have changed their mind.

To be clear: asking the difficult questions the Royal Commission invites is not anti-science. Both science and democracy flourish with transparency. Science, at its best, welcomes enquiry and evaluates all answers. Controversy over the primary weapon our government employed to combat COVID—mRNA vaccines—began not with misinformed luddites but with the red flags raised each time leaders breached scientific and constitutional standards.

If we just “move on” without rebuilding trust in our institutions, we will never really move on.

Science, at its best, welcomes enquiry and evaluates all answers.

And if we move into a world where consequences for poor decision-making are even weaker, trust will erode more, and the risk of future crises increase. Improvements in safety are not inevitable with the passage of time or accumulation of knowledge; vigilance must be baked in.

In the US, the number of lab incidents reported to the NIH has climbed since 2005. They haven’t just become more common—the pathogens are often more harmful. The question is not if this kind of research will result in a leak, but when.

This bill, however, would create one of the most permissive environments in the world. We would even rubber stamp medical products that have received approval by recognised overseas authorities—like the FDA in the USA, which is notoriously lax. Approving gene technology should be on a case-by-case basis, taking our unique environment into account. This bill provides no assurance that—even with locally approved technology—regulators will factor in worst-case scenarios, receive public input, or operate independently of political or industry interests.

Anything that might impact tourism or our high-quality, edible exports—whether it’s the lure of genetically modified crops or the threat of a pathogen—has the potential to devastate our economy.

Yes, the legislation governing genetic modification needs updating. But it should be informed by the past and not built on fantasies of a future where technology cures all ills.

If we don’t require accountability and transparency from those who wield it, technology—a hopeful hero—could instead be the villain.