Genetic engineering: Who decides?

Press, 26 August 1977, Page 13

Genetic engineering: Who decides?

Dr Darryl Reanney recently presented his views on the genetic engineering debate. Because of the controversial nature of this subject, “The Press” invited a cell biologist, BILL WILSON, of the University of Auckland, to put the opposing point of view.

An exciting new era of biological research was initiated in the 1940 s by the discovery of the nature of genetic material: a discovery which has led to our present detailed understanding of how genes work. Like many advances in scientific knowledge these developments have led to the birth of a dramatic new technology. But the technology which has emerged is generating a major international controversy because of its wi d e-reaching implications.

The new techniques such as recombinant DNA technology and others known colloquially as genetic engineering herald a radical change in the relationship of human beings to their world. For the first time we can see ways to transplant new genes into organisms in the hope of making them more useful to ourselves. New organisms are being proposed as solutions to problems such as food shortages and pollution.

The ethical dilemma which is in evidence at present has arisen because there are serious doubts whether the techniques are safe: some of the new gene combinations might result in organisms with

highly undesirable properties.

An experiment conducted by the D.S.LR. in 1974 seems to have given substance to this fear, in that a genetically modified fungus appear', to have been responsible for the deaths of all the pine tree seedlings with which it came in contact. Fortunately, the scientists involved wasted no time in destroying the new strain and it appears that escape from the laboratory was prevented. Dr Darryl Reanney has criticised the publicising of this episode by the media as creating a feeling of unease; and he has accused the critics of genetic engineering of using superstition and fear. 1 wish to reply to the three major arguments he presents.

1. The critics of genetic engineering are using scare tactics. There are few scientists who will argue that genetic engineering does not involve dangers, but some seem determined that the public should not be informed pf the risks, supposedly because of their noble wish to ensure that no-one becomes frightened.

I do not believe that an honest, public appraisal of

the hazards wil result in a frenzy of suicide attempts. This desire to protect the public from open debate must be viewed as either a remarkable sort of paternalism — or, perhaps more cynically, as an attempt to protect the interests of the scientists involved. Admittedly, the horror scenarios are speculative in that we do not know for certain that any particular experiment will go

awry. But that does not provide much comfort. Would Dr Reanney have us turn our backs on the speculative dangers until they have been demonstrated? For me, the D.S.I.R. experiments have come quite close enough. Professor Robert Sinscheimer, of the California Institute of Technolgoy, says: “The atomic age began with Hiroshima. After that no-one needed to to be convinced that we had

a problem. We are now entering the Genetic Age; I hope we do not need a similar demonstration.” I believe that New Zealand scientists involved in genetic engineering failed to present the issues to the public when they first arose; and that they are now being placed on the defensive as others recognise the implications of their research. So intent have they become in fighting this rearguard action

that they seem unable to recognise, or admit, that fears in this area of science are legitimate. Surely we have seen technological “progress” turn sour too many times to be persuaded that such fears are irrational. They are based on an appreciation of the implicatins of disturbing the delicately balanced inter-relation-ships between organisms that have evolved over millions of years. There is nothing par-

ticularly fanciful about the horror scenarios. Let us not forget that a simple mutation in a flu virus resulted in a epidemic that killed more people than the First World War. 2. Genetic engineering occurs in nature. Much has been made by Dr Reanney and others of the fact that gene transfers of the type achieved by the genetic engineer might occur naturally. This defence of genetic

engineering represents a serious misunderstanding of what the critics are about. We have every reason to expect that sudden emergence of organisms with new properties, whether made by man or by natural means, will generally cause major biological upheavals. It is for this reason, not because it is unnatural, that I have so little enthusiasm for the great acceleration in the rate of genetic change

that the new technologies will entail. The ultimate fate of ourselves, and of the species on which we depend, may well be extinction, but surely no-one will argue that there is any merit in hastening this process by increasing the chance of biological cataclysm.

3. We cannot risk censorship of science. Dr Reanney sees the freedom of scientific enquiry at stake. In a sense he is right; and I fully agree with him that the decision to restrict the quest for knowledge must not be taken lightly. But it would be highly irresponsible to assert this freedom to be unconditional.

Our laws already recognise that few freedoms can be absolute if any sort of civilisation is to survive. Particularly in the case of genetic engineering, when the gathering of knowledge may itself endanger our survival, that freedom must be seriously questioned.

In fact, this principle is already acknowledged by the supporters of genetic engineering as evidenced by the banning of some of the more conspicuously dangerous experiments. It would be a strange per-

version of science that placed the right to know above the welfare of human beings. I fully sympathise with those scientists who want to employ recombinant DNA-techniques. It will take great courage and maturity to exercise the restraint that is required in this area. But there are some doors to the unknown which may have to remain closed if man is to avoid a passage to oblivion.

In conclusion, let me point out that my primary concern is not that my views on whether we should do genetic engineering should prevail, but that the decision be taken after a full and public examination of the issues. It is a cause for serious concern that no machinery exists whereby interested parties can make submissions to the Working Party on Genetic Engineering which will report to the Minister of Science. The New Zealand Association of Scientists, the Environmental Defence Society, and the Opposition spokesman for Health have all called for a public enquiry. It is difficult to understand why the genetic engineers continue to oppose this if they are convinced of the rationality of their position.