The recombinant DNA controversy: twenty years later.
1995; National Academy of Sciences; Volume: 92; Issue: 20 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1073/pnas.92.20.9011
ISSN1091-6490
Autores Tópico(s)Genetically Modified Organisms Research
ResumoFebruary 24-26 of this year was 20th anniversary of Asilomar Conference that considered public health implications of was then a new genetic technologyrecombinant DNA. Looking back now, this unique conference marked beginning of an exceptional era for science and for public discussion of science policy-one that continues unabated to this day. This year alone saw a scientist turn back $614,000 in research grants, as a measure of he perceives as possible misdirections of current molecular genetics, and a call, by religious leaders representing 80 different faiths and denominations, opposing the patenting of genetically engineered animals and human genes, cells, and organs. This 20th anniversary is then an important opportunity to reflect on history of that occasion and its ramifications. What events led to conference? Eight months earlier, in July 1974, a call for a voluntary moratorium on certain scientific experiments using emerging recombinant DNA technology startled world-wide scientific community (1). This unprecedented action by a group of American scientists echoed reservations expressed at a Gordon Conference on nucleic acids summer before (2). Both groups acknowledged that new technology created extraordinary novel avenues for genetics and could ultimately provide exceptional opportunities for medicine, agriculture, and industry. Nevertheless, scientists were concerned that unfettered pursuit of this research might engender unforeseen and damaging consequences for human health and Earth's ecosystems. In spite ofwidespread consternation among many scientists about proscriptions, validity of concerns, and manner in which they were announced, moratorium was universally observed. One goal of moratorium was to provide time for a conference that would evaluate state of new technology and risks, if any, associated with it. That conference, held at Asilomar Conference Center on California's Monterey peninsula, included scientists from throughout world, lawyers, members of press, and government officials. One aim of meeting was to consider whether to lift voluntary moratorium and, if so, under conditions research could proceed safely. Although there were few data on which to base a scientifically defensible judgment, conference concluded, not without outspoken opposition from some of its more notable participants, that recombinant DNA research should proceed but under strict guidelines (3). Such guidelines were subsequently promulgated by National Institutes of Health and comparable bodies in other countries (4). primary motivation for prompt actions taken by scientists and governments in period 1973-1976 was to protect laboratory personnel, general public, and environment from any hazards that might be directly generated by experiments. In particular, there were speculations that normally innocuous microbes could be changed into human pathogens by introducing genes that rendered them resistant to then-available antibiotics, or enabled them to produce dangerous toxins, or transformed them into cancercausing agents. uncertainties stimulated a sometimes turbulent debate. Public fear was fanned by popularity of The Andromeda Strain and myriad what ifs floated by both serious and demagogic commentators. Also plaguing debate over necessity for or adequacy of measures proposed to minimize imagined risks was ignorance, even in scientific community, about properties of cells and viruses containing foreign genes, including whether such cells and viruses posed any risk at all. Some scientists, and public officials as well, were certain that recombinant DNA research was flirting with disaster and that lifting moratorium was a blunder. Others, reflecting their intuition and expertise, argued that such cells, viruses, and recombinant DNAs posed no risk at all. overwhelming assessment today is that latter view was correct. Literally millions of experiments, many even inconceivable in 1975, have been carried out in last 20 years without incident. No documented hazard to public health has been attributable to applications of recombinant DNA technology. Moreover, concern of some that moving DNA among species would breach customary breeding barriers and have profound effects on natural evolutionary processes has substantially disappeared as science revealed that such exchanges occur in nature. use of recombinant DNA technology now dominates research in biology. It has altered both way questions are formulated and way solutions are sought. isolation of genes from any organism on our planet, alive or dead, is now routine. Furthermore, construction of new variants of genes, chromosomes, and viruses is standard practice in research laboratories, as is introduction of genes into microbes, plants, and experimental animals. Equally profound is influence it has had in many related fields. Even a brief look at journals in such diverse fields as chemistry, evolutionary biology, paleontology, anthropology, linguistics, psychology, medicine, plant science, and surprisingly enough, forensics, information theory, and computer science shows pervasive influence of this new paradigm. But most profound consequence of recombinant DNA technology has been our increased knowledge of fundamental life processes. No longer is gene an abstract notion, nor is it as enigmatic as interstellar dark matter or black holes. Genes, and chromosomes of which they are a part, are describable in precise chemical terms. Even more significantly, genes can be synthesized in test tubes, manipulated, and reintroduced into cells of living organisms, enabling us to link genes with specific physiological functions. An even abbreviated enumeration of extraordinary advances stemming from recombinant and associated technologies is beyond scope of this commentary, but a few brief examples can provide a sense of breadth of research's implications. (i) ability to isolate genes readily and to determine their chemical structure unexpectedly revealed that genetic messages-the genes-of vertebrates, including humans are filled with interruptions, a feature that is largely missing from genes of simpler organisms. These interruptions must be edited out before genetic messages make sense, and becausc editing process can occur in a variety of ways, many genes encode multiple functions. Consequently, amount of ge-
Referência(s)