OPEN LETTER TO
   ON HAZARDS

&(loWr s*M.Qd

iZ6 3:

THE ASILOMAR CONFERENCE
OF RECOMBINANT DNA

In recent years we have witnessed the rapid development of unusually potent

bi-ological technologies.

and occupational health hazards inherent in one of these technologies, the linking

together of DNA molecules across natural species barriers.

slight the current hazards of introducing man made hybrid microorganisms into the
environment appear at the moment, the hazards 06 such activities are unknown and

possibDiy great.

at the time of their introduction have become int.e intentionally or accidentally

destructive of human life and the environment.

position to benefit from the lessons of our technological present and not contribute

to the inventory of tragic results already caused by, for example, radium, asbestos,

thalidomide, vinyl chloride and dieldrin.

This conference has been called to consider the public

Regardless of how

We have seen how technologies which appeared completely beneficiai

Molecular biologists are in a

   There are even broader social issues that must be considered. The growing

preoccupation with technologies involving genetic manipulation, and parallel deveiop-

ments such as cell fusion and in vitro fertilization, all point to the application

of these techniques for human genetic manipulation. Technology and scientific

development, even when labelled biomedical, is not intrinsically socially beneficial.

Specifically, technologies pointing to the modification of human genetic material

must be examined with the greatest care to understand why they are being so eagerely

developed, and for precisely whose benefit.

Decisions at this crossroad of biological research must not be made without

public par ti cipa tion.

There is little evidence that the technologies being discussed at this meet-ing

arise from social or medical needs of large segments of the population. Rather,

they represent specialized interests including those of the scientific community

itself. The consequences are that experiments that happen to be conceived, get

done, regardless of whether or not they should be done.

The public rationale for

these rapid developments in genetic engineering generally involves positing hope

for individuals suffering from rare genetic diseases. In fact, considerable

risk may be taken by clinicians eager to apply advanced knowledge to effect new

cures. However, the search for such dramatic cures often diverts attention from

the massive health needs of the population as a whole and the need to prevent the

epidemics of our time, such as environmental and industrial carcinogenesis,

malnutrition and coronary heart disease.

The dangers inherent in the new technologies mandate some regulation of

their development. We do not believe that the molecular biology community, which

is actively engaged in the development of these techniques, is capable of wisely

regulating this development alone. This is like asking the tobacco industry to

limit the manufacture of cigarettes.

Although we could imagine a scientific

community in which the spirit of social cooperation would be sufficiently developed

so as to require no external regulation, this is not our case today. We have

all had personal experience of the competitive and professional pressures which

remove caution, prudence and a larger concern for social benefits, from the path

of hazardous experiments.

Scientific carekrs are not built solely on a concern

for public health, for the well being of the underprivileged, or right action.

   Since the risks and danger of these technolgies are borne by the society

at large, and not just scientists, the general public must be directly involved

in the decision making process.

Yet we see even in the structure of this

conference that a scientific elite is here alone trying to determine the direction

that such regulation should take.

The presence of scientists from specialized

government agencies is an important input in this discussion, but not a sufficient

one.

    The moratorium was called until attempts have been made to evaluate the

hazards and some resolution of the outstanding questions has been achieved.

These

conditions still have not been met. From scientists should come the initiative to

open and create areas of participation in order to achieve a resolution to these

questions in a socially balanced manner.

This has not been done and should be

done as soon as possible.

to organize their priorities in science and technology in order to define and

So far the lead has come from people who are beginning

implement options that will affect present and future societies, very differently

than those conceived by scientific experts alone.

In our efforts to listen to people outside the scientific establishment, we

offer five proposals :

1. Involve those most immediately at risk - technicians, students, custodial

staff, etc., in collective decision making on safety policy for the laboratory

2. Integrate into the curriculum of biology and medical courses the social

implications of present and future biomedical research.

3. Require social and environmental impact statements on the means and

goals of biological research projects.

4. Continue examination of these matters at public sessions of scientific

meetings.

5. Expand participation in the advisiory committee of the National Institutes

of Health requested by the moratorium. The N.I.H. could be the structure through

which the involvement of non-scientists in decision making could be implemented.

Since the original call for the moratorium, 7 months ago, the outstanding

questions posed by it have becoae even more relevant, given the number of univeristy

laboratories and commercial interests that are preparing to work with artificial

recombinant DNA molecules and their applications. Clearly at least the minimal

prudence of the moratorium should be continued until the above proposals are put

into meaningful effect.

Genetic Engineering Group of Science for the People:
Jon Beckwith, Harvard Medical School Fred Ausubel, Harvard Univ.
Luigi Gorini, Harvard Medical School

PaoPo Strigini, Boston Univ.

Kostia Bergmann, M.I.T.
Kaaren Janssen, M.I.T.
Jonathan King, M.I.T.
Ethan Signer, MeI.T.
Annamaria Torriani, M.I.T.