of the same species come into contact. Thus, by definition, the domestic and 
wild types belong to the same species. Similarly, cultivated plants are vastly 
different from their wild ancestors, but can be interbred with the wild types. 
Mankind has selected plants and animals with superior performance character- 
istics to enhance agricultural productivity and efficiency. With increasing 
knowledge, this process has continued with increasing efficiency. Selective 
breeding is not qualitatively different from gene transfer. Gene transfer is, 
however, potentially much more efficient in that selected genes that can be 
incorporated to allow quantum improvements in productive efficiency. 
It is apparent that Mr. Rifkin believes that introduction of a gene derived 
from one species into the genome of another species violates some essential 
essence of the species, what he calls the species n border n . It is a miscon- 
ception that one or a few genes are sufficient to violate the integrity of a 
species. Individuals within species possess only a portion of the gene pool of 
the species, and the gene pool is dynamically evolving, with loss and gain of 
genetic variation. Introduction of "new" genetic material into a species can be 
argued to be beneficial to the ability of the species to compete and survive, 
because it is the limit in genetic variation within a species that determines 
its long-term survivability. An individual within a species is not the defini- 
tion of that species, it is only a representative of that species. 
Recombinant DNA research in animals is not only potentially powerfully 
beneficial to agricultural productivity and the consequent ability to provide 
food and fiber for the human population of the world but also to human health 
sciences. A great deal has already been learned about regulation and expression 
of oncogenes and human genetic disorders. Interruption of research leading 
toward prevention, treatment, or cure of such diseases would be irresponsible. 
I do not wish to call into question the motives of Mr. Rifkin; however, the 
eloquent lack of substance in his letter leads me to wonder what his goals are. 
Nowhere in Mr. Rifkin’s letter is either the issue of potential harm to the 
environment or the issue of potential hazard to human or animal health raised. 
In fact, a very strong case can be made that the research in question does not 
pose a hazard of either type. Perhaps that is the reason these issues were not 
raised by Mr. Rifkin. My concern, therefore, is that it is not apparent why Mr. 
Rifkin feels that RAC should take action to ban work on gene transfer in mam- 
mals. Is there another, unstated, purpose behind Mr. Rifkin's proposal? If 
that is the case, is the purpose other than simply to interfere in the progress 
of research with such a clear potential to enhance human and animal health? One 
can not be certain what purpose Mr. Rifkin has in mind, but the prevention of 
work that has strong potential to provide information leading to the treatment 
and/or prevention of such human diseases as cancers and genetic disorders and of 
animal diseases such as parasitemia and infections would be unspeakably 
unfortunate. 
I urge the RAC to take a strong position against Mr. Rifkin’s proposals. 
Sincerely, 
Finnie A. Murray, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor 
[473] 
