On Letting the Gene Out of the Bottle 3 *™ s 
MORATORIUM ON RESEARCH 
IN GENETICS IS EXTENDED 
NYTimes 9-30-76 
CAMBKluot, Mass., sept. 29 (AP ) — 
The city’s moratorium on genetic re- 
search at Harvard University and the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
has been extended another three months. 
City officials have argued that experi- 
ments in genetic engineering could pro- 
duce a serious danger to public health 
and cause a major biological disaster. 
In July, at the urging of Mayor Alfred 
Vellucci, the City Conned adopted a reso- 
lution putting a three-month moratorium 
on all research that combines DNA genet- 
ic material from different organisms to 
create new life forms. The council ap- 
proved the additional delay at a meeting 
this week. 
The resolutions were aimed directly at 
delaying Harvard's plans to build a maxi- 
mum-security laboratory in the city. 
Daniel J. Hayes Jr., chairman of the 
Citizen's Committee, an eight-member 
board appointed to study the affect of 
genetic research on Cambridge, said yes- 
terday that the three-month extension 
was needed because results of an environ- 
mental impact study by the Federal Gov- 
ernment were not available. 
Copyright © 1976/77 
by The New York Times 
Company. Reprinted 
by permission. 
Copyright © by The 
Washington Post . 
Panel to Review 
Genetic Research 
A national commission with a ma 
joritv ot nonscientists should be 
named to make regular reviews of the 
federal guidelines that govern poten- 
tially dangerous genetic research. 
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-llass.) 
said yesterday. 
"What 1 am describing is a continu- 
ing version of the citizens' council in 
Cambridge. Mass.." said Kennedy— 
chairman of the Senate Health Sub- 
committee now reviewing those guide- 
lines — to scientists at the Hoffman-La 
Roche Laboratories in Nutlet . 
On advice of its citizens’ council, 
the Cambridge City Council voted ro- 
sirirlions on genetic studies that go 
well beyond federal guidelines. 
Local communities should retain 
the right "to add requirements they 
think essential to protect their own 
communities." Kennedy said. 
He thus disagreed sharply with the 
recommends ions of a federal inters 
genev committee, and the vir vs ol 
most scientists, who think that genet ir 
research and the growth of universt 
lies will suffer if there is a patchwork 
of local regulation instead of national 
standards. 
Kennedy argued that citizens must 
help make social decisions about sci- 
ence in genetics and other fields. On 
saccharin — subject to an imminent 
federal ban as a possible cause of can- 
cer — he said. “Perhaps some foods 
should follow the tobacco precedcni 
and be left to each of us to decide 
Whether to buy it or pass it by." 
“We wanna make sure nothing comes crawling out 
of that lab,” said the Mayor of Cambridge, when Harvard 
proposed to study genetic modification. As it happened, 
tire Cambridge City Council recently voted to let Har- 
vard proceed, but the concerns about genetic engineering 
and "Frankenstein genes” have become international. 
Within the scientific community, genetic engineering 
has produced the widest philosophical debate since the 
splitting of the atom. Is it a promising research tool? 
Is it an unacceptably dangerous intrusion into the genetic 
heritage of life? Until recently, the debate was left to 
the scientists. Now the Legislatures of California and 
New York are considering bills to control the research, 
as are several members of Congress. On a scientific Issue 
with such enormous implications, who should decide? 
Gene-splicing has become the fastest-growing field 
in biology. The research involves separating and recom- 
bining DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, the active substance 
in the genes of all living things. DNA governs the 
heredity of life. Characteristics of an organism can be 
altered by splicing in DNA pieces from another organ- 
ism: genetic transplants can be done between cells as 
diverse as mammal and plant. A bright high school 
biology student can do it. 
Eighty-six universities in the United States are, doing 
DNA research; so are at least nine private companies. 
The pure researchers are trying to leant how DNA gives 
organisms their hereditary traits, while pragmatic biolo- 
gists are pursuing practical applications for drugs and 
vaccines. Synthetic insulin and a vaccine for swine and 
cattle diseases are two immediate possibilities. Yet more 
dazzling results are imaginable. Recombinant DNA tech- 
nology could lead to an increase in the world’s food 
supply by enabling plant genes to manufacture their 
own nitrogen fertilizer from the air. "Gene therapy" 
in human beings may be only five to fen years away; 
genetic engineering might wipe out diseases such as 
sickle cell anemia. 
The potential for harm, however, is also immense. 
Seme distinguished scientists, including Nobel Prize- 
winner George Wald, have called for a moratorium on 
gene-splicing experiments. The recombinant DNA’s can 
reproduce themselves in their host cells. Once released 
into the world, they might be impossible to control. 
Science fiction possibilities abound. Bacteria bred to eat 
Progress or Peril? 
Gene Transplants Stir 
Communities’ Fears; 
Scientists Are Split 
Some See Important Benefits 
While Others See Danger 
Of Unheard-of Diseases 
WSt Jml 9/28/76 
oil spills could go on an indiscriminate rampage through 
useful oil in automobiles and aircraft. A new strain of 
bacteria dumped accidentally into a sink could make 
its way from ocean to fish and back to human intestines. 
"Knowing human frailty," said Cal Tech’s Robert Sins- 
heimer, "these structures will escape, and there is no 
way to recapture them.” 
The opponents of recombinant DNA research do ignore 
the success of science in handling agents as hazardous 
as rabies, plague and typhus in secure laboratories. And 
indeed, most of the research follows the careful guide- 
lines of the National Institutes of Health. 
More important than these arguments and counter- 
arguments, however; more important than whether such 
research should or should not be controlled, is the ques- 
tion of who should make that decision. 
The DNA issue should not be left to the scientific 
community alone. Neither can it be left to well-inten- 
tioned city and state legislators. For one thing, the broad 
appeal of the research means only that a tough law 
in one place will send researchers to another. More 
important, on issues of such immense consequence for 
good or ill, the public must participate in the decision. 
Scientists may feel that any legislative restrictions 
would interfere with their treasured freedom of inquiry. 
But the public is already part of the process; the research 
grants to study recombinant DNA come from the national 
Government. The scientists have here an opportunity, 
indeed a duty, to educate the public and its elected 
representatives — devising, for example, a national frame- 
work for biological research and a possible commission 
similar to the Atomic Energy Commission. Congress 
goals and purposes of the research. A well-thought-out 
goals and purposes of the research. A well-thought-of 
legal framework for such research could do more than 
provide the foundation for rational decisions and proper 
safeguards. An American law could provide world leader- 
ship as well. Gene-splicing is going on everywhere, and 
its products are going to be no respecters of national 
borders. 
Biological and biochemical research have come upon 
exciting times, much as physics did 50 years ago. If 
the history of science is any guide, sooner or later, the 
research will be carried to its ultimate conclusion. We 
had better first be clear on the means and the goals. 
NYTimes 3-29-77 
Federal Scientists Plan to Determin • 
Potential Hazard of Gene Splicing 
in Safeguarded Laboratories 
By HAROLD M. SCHMECK Jr. 
Special lo The New York Time* 
Confrontation at Cambridge 
By Daviii Gi mpekt 
StuIJ Rr/jorti r «>/ THE Wall STREET JOURNAL 
Federal Control Urged 
Over All Laboratories 
# WASHINGTON POST/3-15 
Doing DNA Research 
Street Journal © 1977 
Dow Jones & Company, 
Inc. All Rights 
Reserved. 
By Victor Cohn 
