Dr. Genelove: How Scientists Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Recombinant DNA by John S. Emrich BA, Franklin and Marshall College, 1999 M.Phil, The George Washington University, 2008 A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August, 31, 2009 Dissertation directed by William H. Becker Professor of History The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University certifies that John S. Emrich has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of July 22, 2009. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation Dr. Genelove: How Scientists Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Recombinant DNA John S. Emrich Dissertation Committee: William H. Becker, Professor of History, Dissertation Director Edward Berkowitz, Professor of History and of Public Policy and Public Administration, Committee Member Ernest Julius Englander, Associate Professor of Strategic Management and Public Policy, Committee Member ii © Copyright 2009 by John S. Emrich All rights reserved iii Dedication The author wishes to dedicate this dissertation to everyone who has encouraged and supported by love of science and history. iv Acknowledgements The author wishes to acknowledge all of the people who made this dissertation a possibility. A number of professors at Franklin and Marshall College planted the seed of the power and possibility of history and encouraged me to explore my own interests as an early student of history. These included David Schuyler, Louise Stevenson, Carla Willard, and the late John Andrew. Without all of them I would have never had the confidence to switch from science to history. At The George Washington University, Nathaniel Comfort, whose early encouragement in the history of science and recombinant DNA, led me to stay at GWU to pursue my doctorate. Michael Weeks, in his various roles within the Department of History, has always been supportive of my work, and has also lent a needed ear to my various accomplishments and problems over the years. Vanessa Northington Gamble taught me how to teach and understand science and medicine from many different angles. Allida Black and The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project for supplying the lessons on how to properly research and write history using primary documents. I am also grateful for their instilling in me their enthusiasm and love of history. The Department of History at GWU has been supportive of my work even when I do not think anyone really understood what recombinant DNA was. Tyler Anbinder, the chair, and Andrew Zimmerman, the graduate adviser, were especially helpful with my final extensions to finish. Tara Wallace, Associate Dean for Graduate Studies in the Columbian College of Arts and Science, was instrumental in awarding me my final extension, and thus providing the time to complete this dissertation. v The influence of Horace Freeland Judson on my understanding of the history of science and writing is immeasurable. I will always be thankful to Horace for his stalwart encouragement of my work and me, especially during the bleakest of days when even I had doubts that I would finish. I will always cherish his friendship. A special thank you to all of the readers who took time to help edit this dissertation. Theses included Yvette Chin, Rebecca Ritzel, Elizabeth Charles, and the GW History Department Dissertation Workshop, as well as the super human effort by Elizabeth Frey, quite possibly the best editor a dissertation writer can have. As the writing and research of this dissertation took far too many years, there are plenty of people I would like to acknowledge for their personal support of my dissertation and me. I would like to thank my immediate and extended family for their encouragement and nagging to get this done, especially my mother, Charlotte, father, Grover, and my brothers, Charlie and Craig. Others whose encouragement and support I would like to acknowledge are Linda Lear and family, the Dembrosky family, Beth and the Frey family, Colleen and the Gilbert family, and Sam and the Matthews family. And without the love, support, and encouragement of Laura and the Douglass family at the end, the final push to complete the dissertation might have not been as successful. And last, but not least, I could not have completed my dissertation without the enduring support, advice, and patience of my advisor, William Becker. His ability to work with a subject matter far from his expertise with such insight is an example that I shall never forget. vi Abstract of Dissertation Dr. Genelove: How Scientists Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Recombinant DNA People are still debating recombinant DNA today, whether they know it or not. As the technology that gave birth to the biotechnology revolution, recombinant DNA initiated passionate debates from 1971 until 1978 which dealt with issues still central to biotechnology: biohazard safety; scientific freedom and responsibility; the standard of national policy preempting city and state initiatives to ensure the ability to conduct research uniformly around the country; the influence of scientific, business, and environmental lobbying on Congress; and, above all, who should be responsible for the creation, oversight, and enforcement of biotechnology advancements. The years from the initial proposed recombinant DNA experiment in 1971 until the Asilomar Conference in late February 1975 were essential in determining the future of recombinant DNA research and setting the boundaries for the debates between scientists and in the public sphere. Despite the urgency of some scientists to move forward with recombinant DNA research during this period, there were times of little momentum and there certainly was no guaranteed outcome. It was in these essential years that fundamental questions were asked about the nature and safety of scientific inquiry, and where tough decisions were made that broke with the traditions of the scientific establishment and demonstrated an extraordinary degree of social responsibility at a critical moment in the history or molecular biology. The dissertation explores the events that were occurring inside and outside of the laboratory that influenced the debates. These included the dramatic changes in molecular vii biology, the rise of the environmental social responsibility among scientists, and radical science movements, as well as, the changing role of the scientific and lay press. These essential first years of the debate also created enduring networks that helped shepherd recombinant DNA through a myriad of scientific organizations and governmental agencies, as well as, respond to the criticism by other scientists and the public in the days, months, and years following the 1975 Asilomar Conference, which came to a consensus on the safety of recombinant DNA. viii Table of Contents Dedication iv Acknowledgements v Abstract vii Table of Contents ix Chapter 1: “Definitions are Arbitrary” 1 Chapter 2: “Nothing Short of Revolutionary” 26 Chapter 3: “Why are we scientists?” 55 Chapter 4: “What do you think a scalpel?” 83 Chapter 5: “Well, now we can put together any DNAs we want to.” 118 Chapter 6: “A green, yellow or red light on these experiments” 143 Chapter 7: Filling the Spaces in Between 176 Chapter 8: Organized Chaos 204 Chapter 9: Under the Influence 231 Chapter 10: Phase One Complete 256 Bibliographic Essay 282 Bibliography 290 ix Chapter 1: “Definitions are Arbitrary” People are still debating recombinant DNA today, whether they know it or not. As the technology that gave birth to the biotechnology revolution, recombinant DNA initiated passionate debates from 1971 until 1978 which dealt with issues still central to biotechnology: biohazard safety; scientific freedom and responsibility; the standard of national policy preempting city and state initiatives to ensure the ability to conduct research uniformly around the country; the influence of scientific, business, and environmental lobbying on Congress; and, above all, who should be responsible for the creation, oversight, and enforcement of biotechnology advancements. Despite the effort of Congress and local and state governments, as well all of the individuals, scientists, organizations, and agencies involved in the debates, only one policy emerged for recombinant DNA in the United States, and it was not a uniform national policy. The policy was a set of National Institutes of Health Guidelines, 1 which only applied to researchers receiving NIH funds. What also resulted from the recombinant DNA debates were policies, such as the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of the Human Genome Project, where the scientists and federal government created programs to address the social impacts of biological advances. The debates about recombinant DNA between 1975-1978 and the implications of the policy created for research using recombinant DNA are well worn by those who have written histories. There is unanimity in one aspect of the histories written about the 1 The first set of NIH Guidelines was release on June 23, 1976. National Institutes of Health, "Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules," Federal Register 41: 27911-27943 (7 July 1976). 1 recombinant DNA debates from historians, scientists, journalists, and critics. They agree that events between the years between 1971 and 1975 had a sense of momentum and inevitability towards a positive