CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 
S 13319 
August 2, 1977 
obstructing research and Impeding progress 
In conquering diseases appears to be much 
greater than the benefits accruing to the 
public through the provisions of this legis- 
lation. 
[From the New York Times, July 31, 1977] 
Lecisi-ating the Laboratories 
(By Walter Sullivan) 
One of the tragedies of modern science 
was the destruction of Soviet genetics dur- 
ing the 1930’s and 1940's, In effect by govern- 
ment decree. It was decided by the leaders 
of the Communist Party that Trofim D. 
Lysenko was right and that classical Rus- 
sian geneticists were reactionary and dis- 
loyal. Nikolai I. Vavilov, widely recognized 
as one of the world's leading plant genetic- 
ists, and many others were exiled. Vavilov 
apparently died In the labor camp at Maga- 
dan on the Sea of Oknotsh. Lysenko's Ideas 
were applied to agriculture, resulting In near 
disaster. 
Now It Is being argued that In the United 
States 6teps are about to be taken toward 
similar suppression of genetic research, 
though the motives differ. The concern Is 
for legislation pending both In Albany and 
Washington that would establish elaborate — 
some researchers say stifling — controls over 
research Involving manipulation of the key 
molecules In genetics: those of DNA (de- 
oxyribonucleic acid). 6uch altered mole- 
cules are known as recombinant DNA. 
Ironically the legislation Is moving toward 
enactment at a time when a number of those 
who first sounded the alarm on such re- 
search have become convinced by new find- 
ings that it can be done In absolute safety. 
The result Is an Intensive effort by such sci- 
entists to head off the most stringent provi- 
sions, particularly those In a Senate bill In- 
troduced by Senator Edw'ard Kennedy. 
There Is also deep concern that Federal 
legislation will allow local and state govern- 
ments to Impose even more severe limits, or 
ban such research entirely. 
Recombinant DNA molecules, as defined 
In the Senate bill, "consist of different seg- 
ments of DNA which have been Joined to- 
gether In a cell-free system, and have the 
potential for entering and propagating In a 
particular host cell, either autonomously or 
as an Integral part of that cell’s genome." 
The genome Is the cell’s storehouse of In- 
formation, coded Into DNA, that controls Its 
development, function and reproduction. 
Among the goals of producing such mole- 
cules Is the Introduction of new capabilities 
Into organisms, such as food crops, or the 
alteration of viruses and bacteria In the war 
against disease. Both the House and Senate 
bills. In their preambles, recognize these 
potential benefits, as well as certain health 
and environmental hazards. 
The favorite tool for genetic research Is a 
group of Intestinal bacteria known as Esch- 
erichia coll. They occur In thousands of vari- 
eties. Meet are harmless, even beneficial, in- 
habitants of the Intestinal tracts of human 
beings and other warm-blooded animals. 
Some cause diarrhea, notably among tourists 
exposed to unfamiliar strains. 
When recombinant DNA Is allowed to enter 
a culture of such bacteria (known for short 
as E. coll) It proliferates there, making the 
bacteria an Ideal "nursery." The fear has 
been that a bacterial culture with an "un- 
natural” load of genetic material might es- 
cape the laboratory and create an epidemic 
•gainst which there was little or no resist- 
ance. 
When biologists from many parts of the 
world: met in Asllomar, Calif., in 1975 to 
consider a voluntary moratorium on some 
aspects of DNA research, pending assessment 
of possible hazards. Dr. Roy Curtiss 3d of 
the University of Alabama proposed that the 
K12 strain of E. coll could be made so help- 
less than It could multiply only under special 
laboratory conditions. There would then be 
no danger of Its spreading. 
Now, In a detailed report to Dr. Donald 
Frederlckson, director of the National In- 
stitutes of Health, he has. In effect, reported 
’success In this effort. 
In recent weeks 277 participants In two of 
the Gordon Research Conferences In New 
Hampshire have signed protests against the 
proposed legislation. The conferences, each 
summer, bring together top-ranking re- 
searchers In a variety of fields. 
One document was signed by 137 special- 
ists In research on nucleic acids Including 
DNA. The second was signed by 140 of 164 
biologists at a five-day meeting on biologi- 
cal regulatory mechanism. It said "no In- 
dication of actual danger has been uncov- 
ered,” and termed the proposed regulations 
unprecedented “prior restraint” that could 
"deprive society of needed improvements In 
public health, agriculture. Industry and en- 
vlronmntal protection.” Lest the foundation 
supporting the conferences lose its tax-ex- 
empt status It was emphasized that the or- 
ganization was In ho way associated with 
the appeals. 
Then, on July 14, Dr. Sherwood L. Gor- 
bach of Tufts University Medical School re- 
ported to Dr. Frederlckson on a workshop 
held at Falmouth, Mass., under sponsorship 
of two units of Dr. Frederlckson’s National 
Institutes of Health. The participants, some 
50 In number, he said, "arrived at unanimous 
agreement that E. coll K12 cannot be con- 
verted Into an epidemic pathogen by lab- 
oratory manipulations with DNA Inserts.” 
During the workshop, researchers from 
American laboratories and the Public Health 
Laboratory Service In London told of tests 
with human volunteers supporting the belief 
that such bacteria cannot colonize outside 
the laboratory. 
While the proposed supervision. Inspection 
and accounting are not a complete novelty — 
they have features In common, for example, 
with those applied to private nuclear power 
plants — they have evoked vehement respon- 
ses. Americans for Democratic Action, a lib- 
eral offshoot of the Democratic Party, stated 
In part: “It should be remembered that 
strict societal control of the activities of 
scientists has been a step in the establish- 
ment of totalitarian states." This, It added, 
led to "Inhuman" experiments In Nazi Ger- 
many and to Lysenkolsm In Russia. 
The parallel with Lysenkolsm, however, 
6eems questionable. The purpose here Is not 
to decree what Is true but what Is safe. The 
concern of those who first sounded the 
alarm — end now almost wish they had not — 
Is that control over research will come Into 
the hands of political appointees Incapable 
even of understanding the Issues. 
The Senate bill provides for an 11-member 
National Recombinant DNA Regulation Com- 
mission to be appointed by the President. 
It specifies that six members be chosen “who 
are not and have never been professionally 
engaged In biological research." The other 
five would be specialists In such research 
but with no financial Interest In recombi- 
nant DNA activities. The commission would 
be empowered to regulate and license the 
research and send Inspectors to Insure com- 
pliance. 
The House bill Is lower key. The Secretary 
of Health, Education and Welfare would pro- 
mulgate the regulations, subject to “recom- 
mendations” by a Recombinant DNA Advi- 
sory Committee. Of the 17 members of that 
committee a majority would not be engaged 
In DNA research, but some. In that majority 
could be biologists. Details of licensing pro- 
cedures are left to the government. Local 
biohazards committees could do the Inspec- 
tions under government auspices. In cases 
of violation one bill provides for fines up 
to *10,000 per day. The other allows fines 
as large as *50,000. 
The prospect of Ill-Informed regulation by 
local governments seems to have convinced 
many DNA researchers that the best they 
can hope for Is a bill like that before the 
House, which leaves regulation In the hands 
of government. Guidelines for DNA research 
have already been set forth by the National 
Institutes of Health providing, In the most 
extreme cases, for safety measures as strin- 
gent as those used when biological warfare 
agents were being developed. These guide- 
lines are widely accepted by the researchers 
as reasonable and prudent. They would pre- 
sumably form the basis for more formal reg- 
ulations. 
Among those who signed the original 1974 
appeal for a temporary moratorium was Dr. 
James D. Watson who shared a Nobel Prize 
for his work on the structure of DNA. Now 
he feels the call for caution has almost re- 
sulted in panic. 
"The vision of the hysterics has so peopled 
biological laboratories with monsters and 
super bugs,” he wrote recently, "that I often 
feel the discussion has descended to the 
realm of a surrealistic nightmare." 
[ 811 ] 
