NEW SCIENTIFIC FRONTIERS,
NEW DEBATES

RITA R. COLWELL

Scientists, politicians, and the public all have a role to play
in guiding new areas of scientific research

The evidence is quite clear that high technology, and especially information technology, is fueling a major portion of the nation’s current economic growth and prosperity. These powerful forces, which come from continuing advances in scientific and engineering research, enhance many aspects of human life and health. Increasingly, as advances in genetics, plant sciences, computers, and other areas push the boundaries of current scientific knowledge, new questions arise over the safety and future implications of many areas of scientific research. In recent months, the issue of genetically modified (GM) crops has captured headlines in Europe and the United States. The safety of GM foods has put the plant sciences in an unaccustomed spotlight.

Historically, many scientific advances have been accompanied by public doubts, skepticism, and even outright fear—one has only to think of how the experiments of Socrates, Galileo, Copernicus, or other early scientists were received. But in the past, advances in new knowledge often took years to be translated into societal application, and years to render benefits in our daily lives. Today, that timetable has, in some cases, been reduced to a matter of months. New knowledge is sometimes transformed into new industries and businesses with the speed and agility of a jumping frog. The result, typically, is economic expansion, more high-value jobs, better public information, and diverse new benefits for society.

However, this accelerated pace of change, coupled with the complexity of the advances of today, can also leave most of the public ill informed and sometimes wary of the implications of technology-driven change. This is particularly true about our increasing skill in manipulating human, animal, and even plant genes. Ordinarily, plants and plant sciences are far from controversy, but the current debate in Europe and the United States over genetically modified crops reveals that many individuals are suspicious of the new crops entering the food chain. On both sides of the Atlantic, many within the electorate are eager to have their say in the decisions governments make on GM crops.

A MODEL FOR SHARED PARTICIPATION

Past experience suggests that the best way to address all aspects of a controversial issue is to have open and ongoing dialogue with the “expert” community, the electorate, and policymakers. The most successful example of how this process can work to everyone’s advantage was initiated in 1975 by biologist Paul Berg and several of his colleagues. They organized a conference in Asilomar, California, to examine the potential hazards that might occur from research experiments in recombinant DNA, then a new, cutting-edge area of scientific research.

That gathering, which has since become known by a shorthand title of “Asilomar,” is viewed as a watershed moment in recent scientific history. The scientific community, voluntarily and publicly, took on the social responsibility of assessing this new and exciting research for any potential dangers. Asilomar and its aftermath provide important lessons that can help guide the next century of highly promising, but increasingly complex, scientific discovery.

In many respects, the deliberations at Asilomar allowed all of the subsequent work in genetics and biotechnology to forge ahead. Scientists attending Asilomar took the initiative to suggest guidelines for safe conduct of the new DNA experiments. This marked the start of a reasonable, studied, and open process. Scientists, together with public citizens and local, state, and federal government policymakers, participated in a democratic and educational exercise. The research was illuminated, fears and dangers were aired, and questions were answered.

As a result, the infant field of DNA research was allowed to proceed. At the outset, few scientists could pinpoint exactly where this area of research was headed, but important discoveries in plant sciences, marine and agricultural biotechnology, gene therapy, and genomics soon followed. These advances, in turn, have led to very concrete discoveries that offer the means to enhance human health, expand livestock production, alleviate famine, and make other significant contributions to human life.

For example, since 1982, a genetically modified version of human insulin has been used to treat diabetes. In 1999, there were close to 100 pharmaceuticals produced by biotechnology applications. The most recent products treat everything from meningitis to juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.

One of the most significant developments in the plant sciences is “golden” rice, a variety that has the potential to improve the health of some of the world’s poorest citizens. Swiss researchers report that they have genetically enhanced rice to contain enough beta-carotene to satisfy daily requirements for vitamin A in as little as 300 grams of cooked rice per day. This is especially good news, as vitamin A deficiency kills an estimated 2 million children each year and is also a leading cause of blindness. Golden rice will be a gift to the world’s poorest citizens, most of them in developing countries.

Biotechnology successes are fast becoming an efficient and cost-effective solution to diverse human problems. For example, plant scientists have genetically engineered yellow poplar trees to clean up heavy metal pollution, including mercury, from contaminated soil—a major environmental accomplishment. The 21st century will see a virtual flowering in the versatility of genetic engineering.

PLAYING BY THE RULES

Politically, though, DNA research didn’t always enjoy smooth sailing. At one point in the process, Congress considered passing legislation forbidding or severely restricting the new recombinant DNA research. The openness and participation of the science community at that juncture was crucial. Several key members of Congress stepped forward, including George Brown (D-CA) and Ray Thornton (D-AR), and the push for extreme legislation receded. Dr. Donald Fredrickson, then director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was a pivotal figure during this period. There was a frenzy of Congressional hearings at which scientists testified for and against the research.

Eventually, in 1976, the final NIH Guidelines emerged out of this broad and very public process. The Guidelines established strict conditions for the conduct of recombinant DNA research, prohibiting certain types of experiments and requiring special safety conditions for other types. The provisions were designed to afford protection, with a wide margin of safety, to workers and the environment. Over 40,000 copies of the Guidelines were widely distributed to foreign embassies, medical and scientific journals, NIH grantees and contractors, and major professional research societies.

In the less than three decades since the 1975 Asilomar meeting and the subsequent NIH Guidelines, many new streams of research have emerged, built on the foundations established by that very early DNA research. Had that research been thwarted, much of what is taken for granted today in new drugs and more productive agriculture could not have come to pass.

In the agronomic arena, the list of enhanced food crops continues to expand. There is canola oil with higher levels of beta-carotene to reduce night blindness, rice with higher iron content, and a potato starch modified so that french fries absorb less cooking oil. The future portends extraordinary possibilities in all fields of genetic engineering.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

What, then, are the lessons for today for the science community, policymakers, and the public? In July 1999, Science magazine carried an editorial by Roger Beachy of the Danforth Plant Center in Missouri. In his piece, “Facing Fear of Biotechnology,” Beachy made a clarion call for the science community to be engaged with the public in the escalating debate about genetically modified crops. He reminded his readers that the use of genetically modified crops in the United States came only after open discussions among scientists, regulators, farmers, and environmentalists, which then led to field tests.

Even with this orderly and open process, following the example of openness and inquiry exhibited at Asilomar, there are still concerns and fears. The continuing voices of scientists in their communities, in newspaper editorials, and on radio and TV, will be needed to address and debate all questions, reasonable as well as unreasonable. In a vacuum of comment and elucidation from the “expert community,” sketchy reports that describe a few experiments in plant genetics not applicable to the issues of public concern have the ability to exert a disproportionate impact on public opinion. If the science community is not dogged in confronting and debating other less knowledgeable, but often louder, voices, the opportunities for new research will wither. In turn, the benefits from future research will be diminished.

The current controversy over genetically modified agriculture suggests that the scientific community needs to work harder at establishing routine dialogue with the public on scientific issues to increase public understanding of science. Science and Engineering Indicators, published biennually by the National Science Foundation, reports that Americans continue to be “bullish” in support of scientific research. When questioned about particular fields of research and specific experiments, however, there is less unanimity. And the public’s assessment of genetic engineering shows some ambivalence.

In addition, NSF has been sponsoring research on public attitudes toward biotechnology, in conjunction with similar work being undertaken in Europe and Canada. The results of surveys conducted in 1996 and 1997 were published in Science and Engineering Indicators 2000. Generally speaking, the data show somewhat less favorable attitudes in Europe than those in North America. The differences, however, are not large. An update of this survey took place this year. The results will help us evaluate changes in attitudes that may have occurred recently.

Clearly, public support of science in general should not be taken for granted. And, just as clearly, perhaps, the science community may not find it easy to educate the public about genetic engineering, biotechnology, and other areas of new research. To place this challenge in proper perspective, it is useful to recognize that scientists of different disciplines have difficulty understanding each other, despite their sophisticated scientific learning. Sometimes, even researchers in the same discipline confront obstacles in exchanging their ideas.

But the goal of increasing the public’s understanding of science is not to make a scientist of every citizen. The level of understanding that should be sought would allow the public to ask better questions and, in turn, question the answers they get. The task of educating the electorate is an ongoing endeavor that needs to be perceived by the science community as part of its professional scientific responsibility. On issues like the safety and value of GM crops, gene therapy, or the many other genetic manipulations on the horizon, the depth of knowledge and detailed expertise of scientists will be needed continuously.

And, if scientists are truly in the business of fighting ignorance, the science community must fight its own ignorance, too. Scientists must know more about the political process, the public pulse, industrial products, and social phenomena. As the late Congressman George Brown was fond of saying, “Most problems are not technical problems and so most decisions are not technical decisions."

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

As the world population grows and developing nations strive for higher standards of living and greater prosperity, new knowledge from science will help balance efforts to protect the planet with efforts to sustain the health and prosperity of its population. An overarching theme in current research thinking is “biocomplexity,” a way of understanding, from a whole new perspective, the connections between and among the living systems that sustain life on Earth.

Biocomplexity is that kind of compelling idea that has been germinating in many minds and many places. It focuses on the intricate patterns that link and illuminate all fields. The complexity of knowledge reached in each research field seems to bring about an integrating, unifying force across fields. For example, scientists are discovering that the ecology of Earth is proving more diverse and complex than anyone ever imagined. None of this understanding would be possible without science, which has changed the way we understand ourselves as a species, the place we occupy in the universe, and our appreciation for the connections we share with other living things.

T. S. Eliot reminded us of this in his poem, Four Quartets, when he wrote, “We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.” In Eliot’s enigmatic way, he tells us that our continuing exploration will always confront us with the unfamiliar and often the unimagined.

Scientists live always at the edge of that expanding knowledge. At Asilomar, scientists stepped dramatically into the debate about the use of that knowledge. And with the resulting new discoveries, society has been empowered to conquer dreaded diseases, increase world food production, extend life expectancy, and broaden our horizons as living creatures. By being involved, engaged, and outspoken in these activities, the science community takes responsibility for the safe and reasonable application of science in the best tradition of Asilomar.

Many of the choices and opportunities that science offers today call upon humankind to examine its values and goals as a society. The capability in manipulating genes is growing so fast that the discussions will be as deep and as broad as the very definition of life, the boundaries between animal species or even between plant and animal species, what constitutes public versus private information, and whether developing nations that lack the appropriate infrastructure can access all the benefits of this new knowledge. These issues just begin to skim the surface of looming questions and debates.

It has taken less than three decades to move from the fledging recombinant DNA research debated at Asilomar to a burgeoning biotechnology research agenda and a diverse and promising biotechnology industry. If the Asilomar experience can teach any lesson, it is that scientists must be engaged in the debate for science to progress and society to reap the benefits. These debates will take place on the editorial page of newspapers, at local governance councils, in corporate boardrooms, at Congressional hearings, in classrooms, in consumer advocacy groups, and on the Internet.

It often takes time to embrace a revolutionary concept, especially when it flies in the face of some conventional wisdom, threatens some of the stakeholders, or displaces some cultural traditions. The more information that is available, the more free the debate about implications. The broader the public participation, the smoother the path will be to decisions that both benefit and protect us all. During the raging debate over recombinant DNA research in the 1970s, Robert Calvert, a history professor at Texas A&M University, perhaps said it best. He wrote, “Indeed, in a careful study of history, it would be impossible to find one example where man has benefited by the closing off of knowledge.”

Rita R. Colwell (CC ‘88) is currently director of the National Science Foundation. A marine microbiologist, Dr. Colwell served as president of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute from 1991-1998. She is the first woman member of the Cosmos Club.

Return to COSMOS 2000 Table of Contents
Return to COSMOS Journals
Return to COSMOS Home Page