Lesson 3: Pest Control & Kaitiakitanga: 1080 vs Gene Drives in Aotearoa
Demonstrating understanding of biological responses and human implications in a socio-scientific issue.
🎯 Ngā Whāinga Akoranga | Learning Intentions
Biological impacts of invasive mammalian predators (possums, stoats, rats) on native taonga species; sodium fluoroacetate (1080) toxin biochemistry vs RNAi and gene drives.
Compare ecosystem recovery metrics under 1080 aerial distribution against theoretical predator gene drives, evaluating bioaccumulation and non-target species toxicity.
🎥 Media Anchor & Pedagogical Scaffold
Biological Pest Eradication Systems & Ecosystem Protection
Video Clip: “What is 1080 Poison? | Sodium Fluoroacetate”. Watch 0:00-1:25.
🧠 1. Before Viewing (Activate & Predict)
Why is Predator Free 2050 in Aotearoa New Zealand both an ecological necessity and a biological socio-scientific battlefield?
👁️ 2. After the Clip (Work With a Job)
- Kōrero: Examine cellular respiration disruption by 1080 toxin (aconitase inhibition in Krebs cycle).
- Kōrero: Analyse genetic pest suppression alternatives: daughterless gene technology.
- Kōrero: Evaluate risk of accidental global dispersion of NZ gene drive organisms.
🗣️ 3. After Viewing & Kaiako Move (Process & Apply)
Kaiako Move: Connect pest management options directly with kaitiakitanga responsibilities and Treaty of Waitangi consultation frameworks.
Immediate Task: Complete Section 3 of your Biology Portfolio: 1080 vs Gene Drive Comparative Efficacy & Safety Audit.
⚡ Whakaoho | Do Now: Socio-Scientific Concept Recall (10 mins)
Both sides cite science. Predator Free 2050 is national policy. 1080 is used in NZ more than anywhere else on earth, and opposition to it is strong, organised, and often argued on scientific grounds.
Two minutes: if two groups both hold evidence and reach opposite conclusions, list what else must differ between them. Values, risk tolerance, whose land, who bears the harm. That list is what this lesson is actually about.
📖 Activity 1: Biological Evidence & Ethical Analysis (25 mins)
Compare on evidence (15 min). Source the data first: DOC publishes outcome monitoring for its predator-control operations, and regional councils publish their own. Take one 1080 operation and one trapping programme where the monitoring is public, and compare outcomes. Identify which native species recovered, over what timeframe, and what the by-kill costs were. Report what the data supports and — equally important — what it does not.
Compare the technologies (10 min). Build a table comparing 1080 and a hypothetical gene drive on: reversibility, species specificity, spread beyond the target area, and who must consent. The last row is the one most people forget.
📝 Activity 2: Level 3 Biology (Internal) Report Drafting & Merit/Excellence Scaffolding (20 mins)
Report — Section 3. Submit: (1) your evidence comparison with recovery figures and stated limits of the data; (2) the four-row technology comparison; (3) a paragraph on why reversibility matters more for a self-spreading technology than for a toxin.
🏫 Kaiako Planning & Pedagogy Notes
Lesson 3 kaiako focus: Hold comparisons to one named 1080 operation and one named trapping programme with published monitoring; ākonga should distinguish measured ecological outcomes from values attached to each control method.