10 • Impacts of Applied Genetics— Micro-Organisms, Plants, and Animals 
CONSTRAINTS IN USING GENETIC ENGINEERING 
TECHNOLOGIES IN OPEN ENVIRONMENTS 
The genetic data base for the potentially use- 
ful micro-organisms is lacking. Only the sim- 
plest methods of mutation and selection for de- 
sirable properties have been used thus far. 
These are the only avenues for improvement 
until more is learned about the genetic mech- 
anisms. 
Even when the scientific knowledge is avail- 
able, two other obstacles to the use of geneti- 
cally engineered micro-organisms will remain. 
The first is the need to develop engineered 
systems on a scale large enough to exploit their 
biological activity. This will necessitate a con- 
tinual dialog among microbial geneticists, geolo- 
gists, chemists, and engineers; an interdisci- 
plinary approach is required that recognizes the 
needs and limitations of each discipline. 
The second obstacle is ecological. Introducing 
large numbers of genetically engineered micro- 
organisms into the environment might lead to 
ecological disruption or detrimental effects on 
human health, and raise questions of legal lia- 
bility. 
Issue and Options — Biotechnology 
ISSUE: How can the Federal Govern- 
ment promote advances in bio- 
technology and genetic engi- 
neering? 
The United States is a leader in applying 
genetic engineering and biotechnology to in- 
dustry. One reason is the long-standing commit- 
ment by the Federal Government to the funding 
of basic biological research; several decades of 
support for some of the most esoteric basic 
research has unexpectedly provided the foun- 
dation for a highly useful technology. A second 
is the availability of venture capital, which has 
allowed the formation of small, innovative com- 
panies that can build on the basic research. 
The chief argument /or Government subsidi- 
zation for R&D in biotechnology and genetic 
engineering is that Federal help is needed in 
areas such as general (generic) research or high- 
ly speculative investigations not now being de- 
veloped by industry. The argument against the 
need for this support is that industry will devel- 
op everything of commercial value on its own. 
A look at what industry is now attempting in- 
dicates that sufficient investment capital is 
available to pursue specific manufacturing ob- 
jectives. Some high-risk areas, however, that 
might be of interest to society, such as pollution 
control, may justify promotion by the Govern- 
ment, while other, such as enhanced oil recov- 
ery might might not be profitable soon enough 
to attract investment by industry. 
OPTIONS: 
A. Congress could allocate funds specifically for 
genetic engineering and biotechnology H&..D in 
the budget of appropriate agencies. 
Congress could promote two types of pro- 
grams in biotechnology: those with long-range 
payoffs (basic research), and those that industry 
is not willing to undertake hut that might he in 
the national interest. 
B. Congress could establish a separate Institute 
of Biotechnology as a funding agency. 
The merits of a separate institute lie in the 
possibility of coordinating a wide range* of ef- 
forts, all related to biotechnology. On the* other 
hand, biotechnology and genetic engineering 
cover such a broad range of dise'ipline's that a 
new funding agency would o\erlap the man- 
dates of existing agencies. Furthe'rmore!, the 
creation of yet another agency carries with it all 
the disadvantages of increased hur(!au('racv atid 
competition for funds at the agemw level. 
C. Congress could establish research centers in 
universities to foster interdisciplinary ap- 
proaches to biotechnology. In addition, a pro- 
gram of grants could be offered to train .sr/en- 
tists in biological engineering. 
The successful use of biological t(‘chni(|ues in 
industry depends on a multidisci|)linar\ .ip- 
proach involving biochemists, getK'liiisls, mi- 
crobiologists, process engineers, and chemist s 
