Office of the Dean 
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 
TWIN CITIES 
College of Agriculture 
277 Coffey Hall 
1420 Eckles Avenue 
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 
(612) 373-0921 
MEMORANDUM 
October 11, 1984 
TO: Director, Office of Recombinant DNA Activities 
Building 31, Room 3B10 
National Institutes of Health 
Bethesda, MD 20205 
FROM: C. Eugene Allen C- (Mc~ 
Dean, College of Agriculture and 
Associate Director of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
RE: Proposal by Mr. Jeremy Rif kin to Prohibit Gene Transfer 
From One Species to Another 
The above proposal is one that will seriously and unnecessarily restrict the 
use of genetic engineering techniques to address diseases important to 
animals and man, and to improve the abiltiy of animals to produce food. 
This new technology holds promise for improving the welfare of both man and 
animals. It is unlikely that a gene for a given trait is unique to a 
species. For example, when genetic resistance to a disease is identified 
and associated with a gene, this technology holds promise for being able to 
control the disease in other affected species in addition to other animals 
of the same species. Some of these diseases are common to man and certain 
animals. Other examples of genes found in one animal species that would 
improve food production in other animal species include the gene or genes 
that control growth rate, milk production and number of offspring per birth. 
For example, a fecundity gene has been identified in a flock of Merino sheep 
in Australia which if successfully transferred to cattle could increase the 
number of twin compared to single births. Such a breakthrough would have a 
major impact in reducing the cost of producing beef in the U. S. and many 
countries where feed for cattle is not a limiting factor. 
I do not object to appropriate and wise regulations that prohibit 
experiments that are inappropriate. However, such an important policy 
decision requires very careful consideration and should not be made without 
extensive consultation with individuals who are knowledgeable of the 
potential benefits and deterrents of such regulations. Mr. Rifkin’s 
proposal is too broad and encompassing, and would not be to the ultimate 
benefit of either humans or animals. 
[ 513 ] 
