9766 
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 47 / Monday, March 11, 1985 / Notices 
Both its importance in current scientific 
research and the long term possibilities for 
treatment of human disease and the 
development of more efficient food sources 
make it a moral imperative that we strongly 
oppose the blanket prohibition of this class of 
experiments. 
Dr. McKinney seconded the motion. 
Mr. Rifkin said he believed RAC 
members were well-intentioned; they 
would not be part of the medical 
research community if they did not think 
they were trying to improve the lot and 
welfare of humanity. Mr. Rifkin said it is 
very difficult for any profession to 
critique itself. He asked the members of 
the committee to look at their world 
view before they made any “hasty" 
decision. 
Mr. Rifkin suggested RAC members 
were affected by the views they held 
about modem science; he asked the 
members of RAC to look a those 
assumptions and consider that there are 
other people who do not share that 
world view. 
Mr. Rifkin said the history of every 
technological revolution shows that 
every great technology brings both 
benefits and costs. The more powerful 
and impressive the technology, the 
better able to expropriate, secure, and 
use natural resources for human needs, 
the greater the potential costs that will 
be heaped on the ecosystem and paid by 
future generations. Mr. Rifkin thought it 
either naive or disingenuous to believe 
that there are no risks, no costs 
associated with the biotechnology 
revolution. 
Mr. Rifkin reiterated his position that 
technologies mortgage the future to 
provide security for the present. He said; 
I think there are certain technologies that 
are so powerful inherent to the technological 
categories themselves that we have to ask the 
question, is it appropriate to use them. 
Mr. Rifkin said Dr. Brinster's 
experiments are an attempt to develop 
superanimals, animals that would grow 
bigger and faster and provide 
commercial advantage in the market 
place. Mr. Rifkin contended that if this 
procedure becomes commercially 
feasible, livestock will be dramatically 
affected. The long-term implications are 
“model culturing" and the loss of gene 
diversity. “Model culturing" of animals 
will affect the well-being of society 
because society becomes more 
vulnerable to losses of these animals 
because the animals lack genetic 
diversity. 
Mr. Rifkin said: 
There are specific parts of this genetic 
therapy that are more problematic than 
others but to suggest that at every juncture if 
we don't give the scientific community full 
license to pursue any kind of research in any 
area that we will be in some way 
condemning all present and future human 
beings on this planet to suffering, disease, 
death, that to me suggests a syndrome of fear 
and it needs to be addressed. . . . 
Mr. Rifkin asked how RAC so 
“prematurely” reached the conclusion 
that the benefits in the long-run 
outweigh the risks; only a few 
experiments of this type have been 
done. How can RAC be so convinced 
the long-term benefits outweigh the 
cost? 
He suggested that: 
... it would be very very foolhardy in a 
one hour discussion on crossing genetic lines 
for you to pass a resolution saying that you 
would encourage this from here 
henceforward. 1 think it's more responsible to 
put a moratorium on this research until such 
time as these questions are being properly 
addressed by the American public. 
Mr. Rifkin thought the letters that had 
been received on this topic did not 
represent an accurate cross-section of 
the American public. 
Dr. McKinney felt Mr. Rifkin had 
either misunderstood or misconstrued 
the comments of RAC members. Dr. 
McKinney did not think any member of 
RAC had suggested there are not 
problems associated with any area of 
research. However, the history of RAC 
has been an orderly process of 
consistently exercising care and 
prudence in approaching the utiliztion of 
recombinant DNA technology. Dr. 
McKinney thought Gottesman's motion 
was to continue this orderly process so 
the potential benefits of this technology 
might be assessed. 
Mr. Mitchell pointed out that Mr. 
Rifkin proposal would prohibit certain 
experimentation involving the transfer 
of genes; thus, the question before the 
RAC is whether this area of scientific 
research should be prohibited. 
Dr. Rapp stressed that at least he and 
probably most RAC members had not 
spent “one hour” considering this issue. 
Most members have been thinking about 
these issues for a number of years. RAC 
members recognize there are risks 
associated with any new technology; 
however, a total prohibition will prevent 
society from ever learning whether these 
potential risks are real or mythical. 
Dr. Rapp said in our lifetime smallpox 
virus has been wiped out; he did not 
think the world was poorer for this 
action. He thought the Brinster 
experiments had to be considered in the 
context of the overall pattern and 
overall benefits of genetic engineering. 
Dr. Rapp said some studies of gene 
regulation, translation, and expression 
have to be done in foreign hosts. Studies 
such as these are leading, hopefully, to 
solution of problems such as cancer. 
Prohibiting these type of experiments 
would destroy efforts to study very 
major human disease syndromes. .Dr. 
Clowes said there are a number of 
scientific developments in which the 
benefits enormously outweigh the costs. 
Dr. Rapp said a total prohibition 
would stop a whole field of science in its 
tracks. Such attempts at prohibition 
have not worked at any time in history. 
RCA should continue to evaluate 
proposals; otherwise, researches would 
perform these experiments in other part 
of the world. Should this occur, the U.S. 
government would lose whatever 
control it now has over these types of 
experiments. Dr. Rapp said he favored 
Dr. Gottesman's motion. 
Dr. Holmes said Mr. Rifkin and the 
RAC do have differences in perspective; 
however, it’s not that RAC only sees the 
benefits where Mr. Rifkin only sees the 
risks. The difference in world view is 
that seeing both the risks and benefits, 
Mr. Rifkin would prohibit seeking the 
benefits whereas the RAC would prefer 
to press on to try and maximize the 
benefits while minimizing the risks. 
Dr. Joklik said many RAC members 
have thought about these types of 
problems for many years; the aim of 
biomedical research has been to make 
our children and our children’s children 
healthier. 
Dr. Joklik said a difficulty in 
communicating with Mr. Rifkin is that as 
soon as one of Mr. Rifkin’s concerns is 
allayed, another concern surfaces. Dr. 
Joklik said Mr. Rifkin now asks how 
scientists can be sure this new 
technology will provide benefits for 
mankind. Recombinant DNA is the 
means for answering many questions. 
Ten years after the inception of this new 
technique, so much more about the 
working of the human cell and the 
human organism is known, including a 
more detailed knowledge of the nature 
of human genetic material. In addition, 
we now have the ability to manipulate 
the genetic material. One simply has to 
ask oneself how much more will we 
know in another ten years, a very short 
time in the experience of mankind. 
Dr. Joklik said Mr. Rifkin was 
attempting to arrest a process which has 
been spectacularly successful. 
Dr. Walters asked Dr. Gottesman if 
she would accept a friendly amendment 
to her motion; he proposed to add to the 
motion the notion of protecting animal 
welfare as well as human welfare 
through a better understanding of 
animal diseases. Dr. Gottesman agreed 
to add such language to her motion. Dr. 
McKinney, the seconder of the motion, 
also agreed. 
[433] 
