NATIONAL OBSERVER 
3 - 19-77 
Democracy vs. DNA 
Tinkering With Genes: Extreme Hopes. 
By Patrick Young 
From Washington, DC. 
S OME of the nation’s leading sci- 
entists came face to face with the 
hurly-burly of democracy here 
last week. They didn’t much like It. 
Scientists generally are not used to 
defending their research on moral, 
ethical, and social grounds, nor having 
their work and their motives questioned 
in debate with laymen. So last week’s 
often-heated 2'/ 2 -day public discussion 
at the august National Academy of 
Sciences provided some scientists 
with a taste of what they may face In 
the future The sessions Included ac- 
cusations. Insults, and even a feeble 
protest demonstration. 
The issue: The risks and benefits 
of a relatively new scientific technique 
called recombinant DNA, In which a 
bit of genetic material from one living 
thing Is placed In another living thing 
to create new forms of life. 
Laboratory Safeguards 
DNA recombination appears quite 
common in nature, particularly among 
bacteria, and may account for the In- 
creasing resistance of various germs to 
antibiotics. But man’s ability to tinker 
thus with genes Is barely four years 
old. 
Yet such work Is booming— with 
funds from the National Institutes of 
Health (NIH), the National Science 
Foundation, and the Department of Ag- 
riculture— and so Is the controversy 
surrounding It. A Washington Post sur- 
vey finds recomblnant-DNA research In 
the United States "13 moving ahead at 
86 universities and research centers 
and at least nine private companies.” 
Control of these efforts may become 
the biggest and most controversial 
science-policy Issue since the debate 
over atmospheric testing of nuclear 
weapons in the 1950s. Both the Federal 
Government and several local govern- 
ments are establishing laboratory safe- 
guards. while some scientists are call- 
ing for uniform standards. And there 
are demands for greater regulation If 
not an outright ban on research. 
Visionary proponents of recombl- 
nant-DNA research have predicted 
marvelous advances— from the cure for 
cancer and the prevention of severe ge- 
netic diseases to a solution to the 
world's food problems. Fevered oppo- 
nents have raised the specter of some 
"Andrdmeda Slrain” loosed to spread 
devastating illness world wide and of 
the cloning of humans, the reproduc- 
tion of genetically identical individuals. 
Such hopes and fears both appear 
extreme Yet the issues raised by re- 
combinant DNA have badly— though 
not evenly- split scientists, even pitting 
Nobel laureate against Nobel laureate. 
Scientists tegard emotionalism ns 
unscientific, but as one chemist 
said: “The opposition Is necessarily 
emotional. We're operating from a gut 
feeling that is very real, and to Ignore 
that gut feeling. I think, is being un- 
scientific.” 
The Bigger Questl on 
Although the conference focus was 
the relative benefits versus the risks of 
recombinant DNA, a few participants 
tried repeatedly to raise another issue. 
"The very much bigger question is not 
how to ■ do this research safely, but 
wnether to do it at all," said George 
Wald, professor of biology at Harvard 
University. But the leaders of science. 
In and out of Government, here and In 
Western Europe, have already agreed 
that the research shall continue, albeit 
with some restrictions. And stopping 
work In the United States probably 
stop It everywhere. 
As debate continued, It became clear 
that neither the risks nor the benefits of 
recombinant DNA can be foreseen with 
any certainty. The technique could pro- 
vide great Insights Into the basic nature 
and functioning of the genes that con- 
trol humans, animals, and plants. How 
cells determine whether they are liver, 
bone, or blood cells, for example, or 
why cells turn cancerous. But there 
was disagreement whether other meth- 
ods might not supply the same informa- 
tion more safely. If more slowly. 
‘Not the Only Anima l 1 
The potential benefits of recombi- 
nant DNA Include a better understand- 
ing and treatment of some diseases; 
new means of producing Insulin for dia- 
betics, Interferon— the body's natural 
antiviral agent— clotting chemicals for 
hemophiliacs, enzymes, and antibiot- 
ics; the creation of plants that take the 
nitrogen they need directly from the 
air. The envisioned risks Involve crea- 
tion of new life forms that adversely af- 
fect the animal and plant life of earth, 
or spread Illness and death. 
“We are not the only animal on this 
planet," said Ruth Hubbard, professor 
of biology at Harvard University. "We 
can louse up our environment as well 
a s our health.” 
It is a lack of certainty about the 
benefits and risks and the potentially 
Immense stakes that are making re- 
combinant DNA a national Issue. Last 
summer NIH Issued safety guidelines. 
These now apply to all Federally fi- 
nanced recomblnant-DNA research, but 
not to private work, such as that of 
drug companies. The guidelines require 
that recombination be done within a va- 
riety of physical and biological "con- 
tainments.” 
They also ban certain experiments: 
The use of organisms that cause major 
diseases In humans and animals; the 
use of potent toxins, such as those that 
cause botulism and diphtheria, and the 
venoms ot snakes and insects; and the 
transfer of drug resistance to organ- 
isms that are not known to acquire It 
n: illy. 
Fears 
Strict Enough? 
For the work that Is allowed, the 
greater the suspected potential hazard, 
the more containment required. There 
are four classes of physical contain- 
ment, ranging from P-1— precautions 
routinely used In bacteriology laborato- 
ries— to P-4, the most stringent. This 
requires an airtight lab, entry by air 
lock, special clothing for workers, and 
decontamination of everything leaving 
the building— people, air, clothing, and 
wastes. 
Questions have been raised, how- 
ever. whether these rules are strict 
enough and whether Federal regula- 
tions should be Imposed on industry. 
The city council of Cambridge, Mass., 
home of Harvard University and the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
has written Its own rules, slightly 
tougher than the NIH guidelines, for re- 
comblnant-DNA work within Its Juris- 
diction. Several other cities have done 
likewise or are considering action. 
Federal legislation has been Intro- 
duced In the House and Senate. A com- 
mittee representing two dozen Federal 
agencies has concluded that no single 
agency has the authority to regulate all 
recomblnant-DNA work, nor are exist- 
ing Federal regulations sufficient to 
cover all aspects of the problem. Com- 
mittee members expect to recommend 
that the Carter Administration propose 
new Federal legislation. 
Such legal and political activity 
frightens many scientists, who see It as 
anti-intellectual, an unwarranted Intru- 
sion on their freedom of Inquiry, and an 
attempt to stifle research philosophi- 
cally unpalatable to some pressure 
groups. 
Other Nations’ Standards 
In 1974, when a committee of the Na- 
tional Academy of Sciences requested a 
temporary halt to some forms of re- 
comblnant-DNA work, many scientists 
assumed that a set of voluntary guide- 
lines would sufficiently reassure the 
public. Last year the NIH rules were 
grudgingly accepted by many scien- 
tists. But now many researchers are 
pleading for uniform Federal standards 
that pre-empt the powers of local au- 
thorities to regulate the research. 
England and Canada have set na- 
tional standards, and many European 
countries have adopted the English reg- 
ulations. But all regulations and safety 
precautions might yet be too little. For 
as recomblnant-DNA work progresses. 
It will become easier to wield the tech- 
nique. And eventually someone, some- 
where— perhaps a brilliant hlgh-school 
student In Garden City, Kan. — will 
create a new life form, without regard 
to any precautions, Just to prove he or 
she can do It. And no one knows how 
safe that new life will prove to be. 
Reprinted with permission of The National Observer © 1977 Dow 
Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 
[ 899 ] 
