and animal breeders have been doing for several millenia and what geneticists 
have been doing for over a century, namely selecting or creating nutations that 
alter a specific genetic trait, either for practical or for experimental 
purposes. There has not been, nor should there be, any type of regulation of 
these older types of experiments since they involve siirply the utilization of 
entirely natural processes. 
The use of gene-splicing methods tor permanently and precisely inactivating 
specific genes was sinply not foreseen in the early 70's when the Guidelines 
were written; indeed, the critical distinction between this type of gene 
splicing and that involving the creation of hybrid organisms containing genetic 
material from two or more different species has never been made. Had specific 
gene inactivation been foreseen, I am certain it would have been expressly 
excluded from the Guidelines because altered organisms of this type pose no 
environmental hazard different in principle from that posed by any ordinary new 
strain of plant, animal, or microorganism derived through the occurrence of 
conventional mutations; in fact, the modem variety are much safer because the 
genetic change is permanent and irreversible, in contrast to classical mutations 
vrtiich can often revert to the wild-type state; indeed, there are cases in vtfrich 
conventional vaccine strains of viruses have reverted to virulence with fatal 
consequences. This unfortunate possibility is precluded by the modem method of 
gene inactivation. 
Jeremy Rifkin and the Foundation on Economic Trends appear to act on the 
basis of a general mistrust of the gene splicing technology and its applications 
to enforce the letter of the law in a scientifically misinformed manner. The 
result is inhibition of an entirely non-hazardcus and exemplary application of 
modem biotechnology to real and tractable problems. This type of legalistic 
[ 246 ] 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 1 1 
