MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu
STS.003 The Rise of Modern Science Spring 2008
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. Week 13: Engineering Life
• Paul Berg, David Baltimore, Sydney Brenner, Richard O. Roblin, Maxine F. Singer, “Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules,” Science 188 (6 June 1975): 991- 994. [also available at http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/QQ/B/C/G/D/_/qqbcgd.pdf] • Everett Mendelsohn, “Frankenstein at Harvard: The Public Policies of Recombinant DNA Research,” in Transformation and Tradition in the Sciences, ed. Everett Mendelsohn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 317-335. • Dorothy Nelkin and M. Susan Lindee, “Preface to the Second Edition,” “The Supergene” in The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon, 2nd edition (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004), xi-xxviii, 192-205.
Additional Background: • Michael Rogers, “The Pandora’s Box Congress,” Rolling Stone 189 (19 June 1975), 37-40, 42, 74, 77-78, 82. • Bowler and Morus, “Genetics,” MMS, pp. 189-212.
By the early 1970s, DNA technology had advanced sufficiently to allow the genetic manipulation of living cells and organisms, allowing, in effect, genetic engineering. Everyone’s imagination ran wild with this new technology, fueling fears of all sorts of things: armies of human clones, designer crops, designer children, a new sophisticated and powerful eugenics. Molecular biologists found themselves in a situation similar to that faced by physicists in the 1940s: they had a technology (atomic fission vs. genetic engineering) that could do both good things (nuclear energy vs. medical treatments), but could also do bad things (bombs vs. eugenics). Just as fission caused great angst for physicists, genetic engineering caused great angst for biologists. Should the government control research? Should scientists censure their own work? In 1974 Stanford biologist Paul Berg and a group of prominent geneticists called for a self-imposed ban on recombinant DNA research until policies and safeguards were established. This led to the conference at Asilomar…
Berg and others, “Asilomar Conference”: The participants at Asilomar pulled off a last minute consensus, which was edited, revised, and published as this article in June 1975. How do the researchers define their concerns? What is the role of government regulation vs. scientist judgment and discretion? How do they assess the dangerousness of experiments? What kind of work should never be done?
Mendelsohn, “Frankenstein at Harvard”: Mendelsohn trained as a biochemist in the 1960s and then switched careers to history of science (until recently professor at Harvard), science policy, and international diplomacy (he was a negotiator at the Oslo Peace Accords). In this chapter he describes a remarkable episode in the history of recombinant DNA: the imposition of strict safety guidelines by the Cambridge City Council in 1977, the first time a local government regulated scientific research. Why did the CCC not trust scientists to regulate themselves? Why did recombinant DNA get debated on the streets of Cambridge? Who has the right to determine what kind of research is ethical (i.e. what was the composition of the committee)? 2
Nelkin and Lindee, DNA Mystique: Dorothy Nelkin was a sociologist and Susan Lindee is a historian who have both studied the social and cultural meanings of genetics. Several areas are worth paying particular attention to. First, in several places they mention James Watson (of Watson and Crick fame) and his support of eugenics (e.g. pp. 5, 15): it is cases like this that make people worry that molecular genetics will lead to a rebirth of eugenics. Second, they briefly discuss popular fears of genetic engineering, especially “Frankenfoods” (p. 9). Third, they discuss (throughout the piece) the growing commercialization of genetic data, including DeCode Genetics’s efforts to sequence and market Icelandic DNA, patenting, and the Harvard Oncomouse. Do you think this is all overblown hype, or do you think genetics and genomics will transform our lives in the coming decades? Should some of these applications be stopped, or should there be a free market for genetic innovation?