Special Section: Disability, Reproduction & Biotechnology

MONITORING THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

A BULLETIN OF THE COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE GENETICS Australian Mouse Study Confirms CRG Warning

BY STUART A. NEWMAN eRG has been issuing a 1977 forum at the National Academy of Sciences, "In the broadest sense we recent news item ("Aus· warnings on all troublesome are here, through the creation of tralians Create a Deadly wholly new gene combinations, inter- Mouse Virus," New JOrk aspects of biotechnology vening profoundly in the evolutionary Times, January 23,2001) process ...we should take every possible provides an apt occasion during the more than two precaution to keep these creations out to reflect on the origin of the Council of our biosphere." for Responsible Genetics (CRG) and decades of its existence. Although a version of the Asilomar to note the lag that may occur between guidelines was adopted in 1976 by the judicious warnings about adverse con- National Institutes of Health (NIH), sequences of biotechnology and their Asilomar, California, in 1975, where the major U.S. public funder of bio- eventual realization. a set of guidelines for the conduct of medical research, by 1978 a new view During the late 1970s the specter recombinant DNA research was pro- had taken hold in the scientific estab- of novel pathogens arising by accident mulgated under a precautionary lishment under the leadership of sev- or on purpose through use of the re- framework. Robert Sinsheimer, a mi- eral of the signers of the 1974 Science cently developed gene splicing tech- crobial geneticist at Caltech, charac- letter and their allies. This view en- nologies led to what has been termed terized the precautionary principle in tirely abandoned the precautionary the "recombinant DNA debate." Rob- approach. In a 1977 New Republic ar- ert Pollack, a virologist at the Cold ticle, for example, James Watson as- Spring Harbor Laboratory, was the serted that the Asilomar conference first to bring these concerns to his col- was "an exercise in the theater of the Still Eating GE Food? 2 leagues, and this led to a letter of absurd" and that the effort to assess FDA Policy Revisions 3 warning in Science magazine from a and control genetic engineering was "a group of scientists central to the field Frankentrees 4 massive miscalculation in which we in 1974. This group included the Nobel CRG InternshipProgram 4 cried wolf without having seen or even laureate James Watson, the future SPECIAL SECTION heard one." This shift led to the weak- Nobelists Paul Berg, David Baltimore AdrienneAsch 5 ening of the NIH Guidelines and to and Daniel Nathans, and the bacterial BonnieSteinbock 8 attempts to dismantle them entirely. geneticist Stanley N. Cohen. This let- Marsha Saxton 10 A detailed history of this policy rever- ter was followed by a conference in continued on page 15 tion to weakening the Guidelines and Maybe it's easier to do these things Australian to the fortunately unsuccessful move than we think." to make them completely voluntary. The accidental creation of a novel Whereas the failure of an unfore- pathogen occurred as the result of al- MouseStudy seen pathogen to emerge from recom- tered biological properties that binant DNA research during the emerged with new combinations of from page one following two decades provided ammu- genes, as anticipated by those who sal, which occurred under the impe- nit ion for the Watson anti-regulatory raised concerns in the 1970s. This tus of increased federal funding and position, the Australian study shows unpredictability is a hazard that also avid commercial interest, but in the this confidence was premature. In the exists with newer applications of these absence of any new scientific findings new article (R. J. Jackson et al., (2001). technologies such as genetically engi- that might have dispelled the original "Expression of Mouse Interleukin-4 neered crops (see M. Teitel and K. A. concerns, can be found in Molecular by a Recombinant Ectromelia Virus Wilson, Genetically Engineered Food' Politics (Univ. Chicago Press, 1994) by Suppresses Cyto-lytic Lymphocyte Re- Changing the Nature 0/Nature, Park Susan Wright of the University of sponses and Over-comes Genetic Resis- Street Press) and prospective geneti- Michigan, a founding member of CRG. tance to Mousepox." J Virol 2001, 75, cally engineered humans (see S. A. The 1976-78 period was also when 1205-1210) the investigators report Newman, "The Hazards of Human CRG began to take form (originally as transforming a Developmental the Coalition for Responsible Genetic smallpox-like virus, If there's a lesson in Gene Modification," Research), through the organizational to which the strain Gene Watch vol. 13, efforts of Francine Simring of Friends of mice they were this, it's that you can o. 3). But it is clear of the Earth. The founding members working with was that this research of the Coalition were natural and so- resistant, into a vi- create a more virulent also enables the in- cial scientists who saw no basis for rus that is fatal for tentional production abandoning the original concerns that strain. They pathogen. of new germ warfare about the biological novelties certain did this by arming agents (see S. to arise from gene splicing methodolo- the mousepox virus with a gene for a Wright, Preventing a Biological Arms gies, and who therefore helped orga- protein (interleukin-4), normally Race, MIT Press, 1990). According to nize a widening public discourse on made by the mouse itself, but in dif- Bob Seamark, director of the Coopera- this issue. For example, Liebe ferent tissues and different amounts. tive Research Center for Pest Animal Cavalieri of the Sloan-Kettering Insti- Even mice that had been vaccinated Control, a governmental group in Aus- tute, in a 1976 article in the New iOrk against mousepox died after being in- tralia that coordinated the mouse vi- Times Magazine, was the first scien- fected with the genetically-engineered rus research, "The best protection tist to raise concerns about the pro- VIrUS. against any misuse of this technique duction of novel pathogens by gene The scientists told Times reporter was to issue a worldwide warning." splicing technology before a national William J. Broad that their goal had CRG has been issuing such warnings audience. Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts been to render the mice infertile and on the various problematic aspects of University, Jonathan King of MIT, that the lethality ofthe new virus took biotechnology during the more than Ruth Hubbard of Harvard University, them by surprise. Broad quotes two decades of its existence .• and Nobel laureate George Wald, also Ronald M. Atlas, a microbiologist at of Harvard, participated in various the University of Louisville and presi- Stuart Newman, PhD, is a CRG Board hearings and public forums in Cam- dent elect of the American Society for Member. He is Professor of Cell Biol- bridge, Massachusetts in 1976 as ad- Microbiology, as saying "If there's a ogy and Anatomy at New York Medi- vocates of the public's right to control lesson in this, it's that you can create cal College, where he directs a research the implementation of a new and un- a more virulent pathogen," he said. program in vertebrate developmental certain technology (discussed in S. "In 99 percent of the cases you would biology. Krimsky, "Genetic Alchemy" MIT not, but in the others you can, and Press, 1982). Krimsky was also a here's an example." Another scientist member of the NIH Recombinant working for the U.S. Defense Depart- DNA Advisory Committee, where he ment on germ defenses said, "It dem- was among the few voices in opposi- onstrates a frightening message.

March 2001 . Vol. 14, No.2 GENEWATCH • 15