69 



Guyford Stever, who was sworn in as the first OSTP director on 12 

 August 1976. 49 



The rDNA Research Controversy 



Nothing heightened the debate over the Government regulation 

 of basic research more than the advent of recombinant DNA 

 (rDNA) research during the early 1970s. In January 1973, a small 

 group of researchers met at the Asilomar Conference Center in Pa- 

 cific Grove, California, to discuss the potential hazards of rDNA re- 

 search. 50 Organized by the scientists themselves, this conference 

 was an attempt to discuss the advisability of self-regulation by the 

 recombinant DNA researchers. 



The debate continued, and in 1974 the scientists called for a vol- 

 untary worldwide moratorium on high-risk recombinant DNA ex- 

 periments. 51 The debate was not limited to scientific concerns, 

 however, as legal, political, social, and philosophical questions were 

 raised as well. 



To assist the Director of the National Institutes of Health with 

 all issues relating to the regulation of recombinant DNA research, 

 the NIH established the Recombinant DNA Molecule Program Ad- 

 visory Committee on 7 October 1974. Its name was later changed to 

 the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee — or "RAC". 



In February 1975, another meeting was held at Asilomar to dis- 

 cuss the issues — this meeting jointly financed by the NSF and the 

 National Cancer Institute. The 155 invited participants consisted of 

 leading biological scientists from universities and industry, govern- 

 ment officials, lawyers, and news media representatives. After 

 heated debate that covered a wide range of issues, a list of recom- 

 mendations was drafted and released. 



RAC drew upon these recommendations when drafting its guide- 

 lines for laboratory practice. On 15 June 1976, the National Insti- 

 tutes of Health issued its "Guidelines for Research Involving Re- 

 combinant DNA," which became the standard for Federal regula- 

 tion of such research. 



The rDNA controversy has been called "an unprecendented 

 chapter in the annals of basic scientific research and in the govern- 

 ance of modern science as a social institution." 52 And without 

 question its impact on science policymaking was profound. For one 

 thing, it brought into the science policymaking arena a whole new 

 group of players — for the most part biologists. In contrast, since 



49 See U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Com- 

 mittee on Human Resources, A Legislative History of the National Science and Technology 

 Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (95th Congress, 1st session. Washington: GPO, 

 1977). 



50 The literature on the recombinant DNA controversy is rich. See, for example, David A. 

 Jackson and Stephen P. Stich (eds.), The Recombinant DNA Debate (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- 

 Hall, 1979); Sheldon Krimsky, Genetic Alchemy: The Social History of the Recombinant DNA 

 Controversy (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1982); Joan Morgan and W. J. Whelan (eds.), Recombi- 

 nant DNA and Genetic Experimentation (New York: Pergamon Press, 1979); Judith P. Swazey, 

 James R. Sorenson, and Cynthia B. Wong, "Risks and Benefits, Rights and Responsibilities: A 

 History of the Recombinant DNA Research Controversy," Southern California Law Review, 51 

 (1978), 1019-1078; and Nicholas Wade, The Ultimate Experiment: Man-Made Evolution (New 

 York: Walker, 1979). 



5 ' The call for a rDNA research moratorium was printed as a letter to the editor in Science, 

 185 (July 26, 1974), 303. 

 52 Swazey, et al., "Risks and Benefits, Rights and Responsibilities," p. 1019. 



