John C. Fletcher 
situation is not to step through the door to the brink of the eugenic 
slope. The danger of gene therapy, in his published views in 1983, is 
clear. Rifkin asks: “Is guaranteeing our health worth trading away 
our humanity?” (p. 233). 
As the actual beginning of human gene therapy has approached, 
Rifkin’s public statements (Thompson, 1984, p. D7) have backed 
away from such dire prophecies about the implications of somatic 
cell therapy. However, he links somatic cell therapy to a previous 
alarm about the potential of gene therapy as a prelude to alteration 
of the germ (reproductive) cells of humans to prevent the transmis- 
sion of genetic disorders. In a published interview, Rifkin acknow- 
ledged that he would not object to gene therapy in an individual. 
However, he went on to say: “Even with the current research there 
is an open question about whether changes in the genetic code in 
(body) cells might have some impact into the sex cells” (Thompson, 
1984, p. D7). This aspect of his caution about somatic cell therapy 
is based upon his disapproval of experiments involving cells from 
the human germline. In this same vein, a New York Times (1982b) 
editorial proposed a public policy of prohibition of “inheritable 
alterations to the human gene set”. Six months later, a resolution 
composed by Rifkin was signed by some 75 prominent Protestant, 
Jewish, and Catholic clergy, including heads of denominations. 
Addressed to the U.S. Senate, the statement asked for a public policy 
to prevent genetic alteration of inheritable genetic change (Norman, 
1983). The resolution cited animal experiments in which the sex cells 
of mice were changed by transfer of genes from rabbits. The public 
was warned that the future would hold the danger of specific traits 
being ‘engineered’ into the gametes or embryos of human beings. A 
key ethical objection was that human germline experimentation 
“irreversibly alters the composition of the gene pool for all future 
generations”. The resolution did not criticize somatic cell gene 
therapy, although Rifkin had earlier been on record as opposed to 
it. Presumably, strong support for gene therapy, already expressed 
by religious leaders in Congressional testimony (U.S. Congress, 1982, 
pp. 301—346) and in comments prepared for the President’s Com- 
mission on Ethical Problems in Medicine (1982, p. 110), militated 
against including any mention of somatic cell gene therapy in the 
resolution. 
Both Rifkin and the signatories commit several mistakes in reason- 
ing. If errors are allowed to serve as normative guidance, confusion 
will follow. Further, biological injustice done to the many who suffer 
[342] 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 12 
