THE PRESS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1976. A new scientific hazard

Press, 7 September 1976, Page 20

THE PRESS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1976. A new scientific hazard

Late last month scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced that they had created a gene by linking tiny pieces of chemicals and placing the result in a living cell. The artificial gene was observed behaving “ naturally ” within the cell. This was at once hailed as a major advance in the field of genetic engineering Almost simultaneously a report prepared by medical and scientific advisers to the Government was published in Britain under the title, “ The Practice of Genetic Manipulation These two events have revived debate about the possible dangers of experiments which go under the general heading of “ genetic engineering ” and about the need for controls over the work of scientists engaged in such research. Scientists can now break genes from different organisms into “ bits ” at precise points and then stitch the pieces together By recombining genetic material with specific characteristics taken from different original cells scientists can make genes to their own specifications. As with research in other scientific fields—notably nuclear physics —the knowledge gained from these experiments can be used to benefit mankind But the knowledge can be abused. The danger of accidents as scientists develop new experimental techniques is also considerable

Genetic engineering may be capable of great benefits. Production of food from plants may be increased; genetic diseases may be cured: microbes may be created to perform complex chemical processes useful in industry The immediate risks from genetic engineering stem less from the possibility of abuse of the knowledge by politically or socially unscrupulous people than from

the accidental release of artificial bacteria or viruses which might multiply and cause new diseases. Scientists and government officials are agreed that safeguards are needed against risks to public health as scientists continue with their experiments in genetic engineering. But there is, so far, no agreement of what the safeguards should be. The report in Britain last month recommended that all laboratories should submit their research plans to a central advisory group of scientists, establish their own safety committees, and appoint their own safety officers. A body of officials, the Government’s Health and Safety Executive, was not satisfied with this self-regulation by scientists and at once proposed alternative, stiffer rules, including the compulsory notification of all experiments and compliance with strictly enforced safety procedures. Two years ago suggestions were made, particularly in the United States, that a permanent international monitoring body of molecular biologists be set up to assess all research findings, identify dangerous areas of study, and lav down procedures to ensure that there is no danger as particular lines of study are followed. Whatever may be the final form of control over further genetic research it seems unavoidable that such research, at present relatively cheap, will become more expensive. Ensuring that such experiments are carried out only under tight security is bound to add to the cost of scientific research. Government interference in the work of scientists is also a price that must be paid. Scientists themselves have raised the alarm. It must be expected that they will accept the controls that are invited by the work they are doing.