Appendix III-A 
History of the 
Recombinant DNA Debate 
The hi.sloiA i)t tin* over the ri.sks from 
rl)\ A tet hnu|iie> aiui the (lov ernment > response 
m.i> fk' iIivuUhI into tour phases • Phase I eoxered 
the penotl trom ttie lirst awareness ot risks to 
tuiinan healtti trom t*\[)eriments iinoKin^ reeomt)i- 
nant I)\ A trDN.AI in thi* summer ot 1971 to the end 
ot the t onterenet* at the \silomar Center in Feh- 
ruar\ 197"> w Itieti r*‘sultetl in protot\ |)e guidelines 
eo\ering the researeh Phase II covered the period 
tmm \silomar through the il«‘\ elopment h\ the Na- 
tional Institutt's ot Health (MHi ot the Cuidelines ot 
Jum* l^t7ti In this jxMiotl the puhlie tirst became 
sigmticantly iiuoKed in the ilehate and most, it not 
all ot the |Hj|ic\ issues were clearK Irametl Phase 
III tnim mid iy7l> thnnigh mid- 1978. iinoKed con- 
gressional consiileration ot the issues in an atmos- 
phere that went trom almost imminent passage ot 
legislation to the cessation ot such ettorts. Phase l\ 
covers the fxisllegislativ e period, when Mil and its 
organizational parent the Department of Health. 
Kducation. anil Welfare IHKW ) (now the Department 
of Health and Human Services) undertook to develop 
satisfactorv voluntarv standards in areas over w hich 
they had no legal authority and to accommodate 
growing pressure for public involvement, while 
av oiding a full regulatory role. 
Phase I began in the summer of 1971. w hen sev- 
eral scientists became concerned about the safety of 
a proposeil e.xperiment to insert DN.A from S\40 
virus, a monkey tumor virus that also transforms hu- 
man cells into tumor-like cells, into a type of bacteria 
naturally found in the human intestine. After 
months of discussion, the scientist who had pro- 
posed the e.xperiment decided to defer it. .Meanwhile, 
as rD.N A techniques became more refined, debates 
about safety increased: at the June 1973 Gordon 
Research Conference, safety issues were discussed. 
The participants voted: to send a letter to the Na- 
tional Academy of Sciences (N.AS) and the National In- 
"For a detailed historv- through 1977. see footnote 1. For a his- 
tory and a discussion of the broader issues, see footnotes 2 and 3. 
'J Swazev J. Sorenson, and C. Wong. Rislis and Benefits, 
Rights and Responsibilities: A Historv' of the Recombinant D.\,A Re- 
search Controversy ' Southern California Law Review 51:1019, 
September 1978. 
HT. Grobstein. .-1 Double Image of the Double Helix (San Fran- 
cisco: VV H. Freeman Co. 1979). 
^D. Jaclison. and S. Stich (eds.l. The Recombinant D\'A Debate 
(Englewood Cliffs, .VJ.: Prentice-Hall. Inc., 1979). 
stiUlte of .Medicine requesting the appointment of 
committees to study potential hazards to laboratory 
workers and the public: and by a narrow majority* 
to arrange for the letter to be published in the widely 
read journal. Science, to alert the broader scientific 
community.* 
•N.AS appointed a committee of prominent scien- 
tists involved in rDN.A research. In July 1974, the 
[lanel asked for a temporary worldwide moratorium 
on certain types of experiments, and called for an in- 
ternational conference on potential biohazards of 
the research through a letter published in Science 
and its British counterpart. Nature.^ This letter also 
rei|uested the Director of NIH to consider estab- 
lishing an advisory committee to develop an experi- 
mental program to evaluate potential hazards and 
establish guidelines for experimenters. 
In response, the Director of NIH, after authoriza- 
tion by the Secretary of HEW, established the Recom- 
binant DNA .Molecule Program Advisory Committee 
(later renamed the Recombinant DNA Advisory Com- 
mittee, RAC) on October 7, 1974, along the lines sug- 
gested by the NAS Committee. The Committee’s 
charter described its purpose as:*’ 
The goal of the Committee is to investigate the cur- 
rent state of knowledge and technology regarding 
D.N.A recombinants, their survival in nature, and 
transferability to other organisms; to recommend 
programs of research to assess the possibility of 
spread of specific DNA recombinants and the possible 
hazards to public health and to the environment; and 
to recommend guidelines on the basis of the research 
results. This Committee is a technical committee, estab- 
lished to look at a specific problem. (Emphasis added.) 
The international conference called for by the 
NAS Committee letter was held at the Asilomar Con- 
ference Center, Pacific Grove, Calif., in February 
1975. The organizing committee made it clear that its 
purpose was to focus on scientific issues rather than 
to become involved in considering ethical and moral 
questions. However, in one session the few lawyers 
“Swazev, et al., op. cit., p. 1,023. 
^Letter from Maxine Singer and Dieter Soil to the National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Institute of Medicine, 
reprinted in Science, vol. 181, 1973, p. 1114. 
^Letter from Paul Berg, et al. to the editor, reprinted in Science, 
vol. 185, 1974, p. 303. 
The charter of the Recombinant DNA Molecule Program Ad- 
visory Committee, Oct. 7, 1974. 
315 
