Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 47 / Monday, March 11, 1985 / Notices 
9763 
the human gene pool are impermissible 
to transfer to other species? If the 
committee decides such criteria cannot 
be developed, then all human genes 
could potentially be transferred to other 
species for some short-term medical or 
economic benefit. Mr. Rifkin said this 
possibility poses a major ethical and 
policy question. 
Mr. Rifkin said every major scientist, 
institution, and association in the United 
States has responded to the Federal 
Register announcement of his proposals 
and almost all have stated that they find 
absolutely no ethical problems in 
transferring genes between species. Mr. 
Rifkin noted, however, that several 
commentators includ.ng Dr. David 
Baltimore, Director of the Whitehead 
Institute, wrote that some ethical 
questions might arise if genes from other 
species are transferred into the human 
germline. Mr. Rifkin said he could not 
understand why introducing a gene from 
another species into the human germline 
might pose an ethical problem while 
transferring a human gene into the 
germline of other species would not 
pose a problem. He contended the NIH 
should have considered the ethical 
issues of transferring genes between 
species before funding Dr. Brinster's 
grant. 
Mr. Rifkin in concluding his remarks 
said: 
Finally, this committee could decide today 
on a quick vote, which it has done many 
times in the past — and we've been together 
many times — that there are no problems here, 
a quick vote up or down, no ethical concerns 
on transferring genes between species; but I 
would like to say that even if that vote comes 
today the concerns of this committee might 
not be the concerns of the rest of the 
American public. Now, I know that many 
scientists think the American public are not 
educated, they can't possibly understand all 
the complex questions raised by this 
technology, that unfounded fears are often 
raised in dealing with this. I suggest that 
that's not a correct analysis. Genetic 
engineering gives us the most potentially 
powerful instrument to change the biology of 
this planet that we have ever had at our 
disposal. Certainly the American public has 
every right to believe there are some ethical 
and social questions at each stage, and I 
would say that this stage is a fundamental 
precedent stage today. This committee, by its 
vote, will say to the Director of the NIH that 
it is your opinion that there is no ethical 
problem as we proceed with this technology 
in transferring genetic traits between species: 
and therefore, it should be the accepted 
policy of the United Slates government to 
proceed. 
Mr. Rifkin said Dr. Michael Fox, 
Scientific Director of the Humane 
Society of the United States and co- 
plaintiff with the Foundation on 
Economic Trends in a lawsuit against 
the NIH, also wished to comment on the 
proposal. 
Dr. Fox said he represents some 
quarter of a million members of the 
Humane Society and is “speaking for the 
animal kingdom." Dr. Fox said 
intei ferring with animal genomes raises 
ethical issues. Nature, in her wisdom, 
may well have set up species barriers 
for a particular purpose, i.e., for 
managing natural ecosystems and their 
coevolution. 
Dr. Fox said just as there are multiple 
genetic defects in purebred dogs and 
cats as a consequence of selective 
breeding, use of recombinant DNA 
techniques may also jeopardize animal 
welfare. He said traditional breeding 
programs have produced animals with 
multiple inbred genetic defects, not for 
utilitarian purposes but for sheer 
esthetic reasons. 
Dr. Fox said selective breeding of high 
yield strains of farm animals results in a 
variety of so-called “production 
diseases:” Lameness, osteoporosis, 
growth abnormalities, metabolic 
disorders affecting magnesium and 
calcium levels, and many other health 
problems. 
Dr. Fox said Dr. Brinster’s idea is to 
create a pig or sheep that will grow 
twice as big, twice as fast. Dr. Fox asked 
what is saved if they will grow twice as 
big, twice as fast He replied, “Time not 
food, because one never gets something 
for nothing." He contended Dr. Brinster's 
research has demonstrated that 
supplementation of dietary zinc is 
needed for the modified mice to grow 
normally. Dr. Fox said that before the 
need for zinc supplementation was 
discovered there was considerable 
animal suffering. 
Dr. Fox said we are on the point of 
turning animals into biological 
machines. He said Dr. Brinster stated 
that genes for valuable proteins could be 
introduced into animals, and the protein 
products harvested from the blood or 
milk of these animals. Dr. Fox asked if 
modifying animals for this purpose is 
ethically and morally acceptable He 
said the animal’s soma will be modified 
if animals are made into biological 
machines; but “the psyche of the animal, 
its telos, its intrinsinc nature” will not 
be affected. In such a situation, the mind 
of the animal may be trapped in a totally 
alien body. He asked RAC to address 
this issue. 
Dr. Fox said an environmental impact 
assessment should be done if 
introduction of genetically modified 
microorganisms into the intestines of 
animals is proposed. He also said that 
perhaps a person with veterinary or 
animal science expertise should be 
appointed to RAC. 
In regard to what mankind is going to 
do to the animal kingdom, Dr. Fox urged 
the committee to consider the word 
"dominion" which he said is not derived 
from the Latin word "domino," to rule 
over, but from the Hebrew word 
"rache," to steward with compassion 
and understanding. 
Dr. Clowes said RAC has received an 
impressive body of letters almost all 
opposing Mr. Rifkin’s proposal. He 
asked the assembly’s indulgence as he 
quoted from several letters. 
Dr. Clowes said one philosophical 
argument advanced by a number of 
geneticists and stated by Dr. Maxine 
Singer of the National Institutes of 
Health is that: 
The notion that a species has a telos (a 
purpose) contravenes everything we know 
about biology. A species can have, and may 
in the past have had a telos (an end) namely 
extinction. That is the only telos known to 
exist. No species we know of has a fixed 
genome. Quite the contrary. Genetic studies 
throughout this century have again and again 
confirmed that the genetic makeup of 
organisms within a species is continually 
changing through recombination, mutation, 
deletion, duplication, rearrangement and the 
insertion of DNA sequences. Recent 
experiments have, in anything, shown us that 
this remarkable plasticity is more extensive 
than we imagined and is a fundamental 
property of living matter. 
Dr. Clowes said a number of letters 
emphasized the potential practical 
aspects of gene transfer 
experimentation. Dr. Donald Brown, 
Director, Carnegie Institution of 
Washington, states: 
The introduction of foreign genes into the 
germlike of mammals other than humans has 
many potential benefits for mankind. Genetic 
changes by modern methods can be done 
rapidly and with much greater precision than 
conventional breeding and selection 
programs. 
Dr. Clowes then quoted from a letter 
from Dr. David Kunkle, Assistant 
Professor at the University of Texas 
Medical Branch at Galveston who wrote 
he opposed Mr. Rifkin’s proposal 
because: 
If adopted * * * [the proposal] would have 
a most far-reaching adverse impact on a 
promising future approach to the treatment of 
human genetic diseases. Some of these 
diseases cause by enzyme deficiencies in a 
well-defined target area may soon prove 
amenable to treatment by somatic gene 
therapy in which the wild type gene would be 
introduced in somatic cells of the affected 
organs. . . . Obviously, detailed animal 
experiments would have to precede any 
possible human trials of such a scheme. Since 
animal models of only a few genetic diseases 
are available, most of such experiments 
would attempt to detect expression of 
exogenous genes against a wild type 
[430] 
