DNA Research

Not so dangerous after all?

Scientists themselves sounded the first alarm when they began to fear that tampering with DNA, the basic molecule of life, might accidentally lead to the creation of new, uncontrollable strains of disease-carrying bacteria. Now most experts have decided they greatly overstated the dangers. But many laymen have remained frightened ever since research at Harvard designed to create new combinations of DNA in the bacterium Escherichia coli K12, or E. coli for short, stirred passionate debate last year (TIME cover, April 18). Last week, after long hearings, Congress was scheduled to act on two bills seeking to control such research. The rush to adjourn forced a postponement of action until after the summer recess, but the issue remains very much alive.

A bill sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy proposes the creation of an eleven-member federal commission to control all recombinant DNA experiments, and an elaborate system of fines and inspections. Representative Paul Rogers' plan counts on local "biohazard committees" to enforce safety standards, under the supervision of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Most scientists, as well as many laymen, politicians and administrators, oppose the Kennedy bill and parts of the Rogers bill on some predictable grounds. Whether or not Government control of recombinant DNA research is advisable, they say, these bills are too cumbersome to work and so repressive that they will discourage research and set a dangerous precedent in the future.

Experiments with the lowly E. coli bacterium hold a promise of many marvels, including food crops that require little fertilizer and the production of new tools for the understanding of disease, perhaps including cancer. Pursuing such research, biologists are naturally loath to become ensnared in more Government regulations. They point out that governmental regulation poses inherent dangers to the freedom of inquiry that science requires. Comments Biochemist Robert White of the National Academy of Sciences: "I hate to see the camel's nose under the tent."

The most important reason that most geneticists and molecular biologists now oppose the legislation is a growing conviction, based on continued experiments, that current recombinant DNA research is safe. Some strains of E. coli normally reside in billions in the human intestine, a fact that encouraged the fear that new laboratory forms would spread like the plague among human beings. But research has shown that E. coli K12, which traces its ancestry to bacteria taken from a human patient at Stanford University in 1922, altered genetically during its life in the labs; among other changes, it can no longer colonize in human or animal intestinal tracts. Biologist H. William Smith, an expert on infectious diseases in animals, suggests that the deliberate creation of an infectious E. coli K-12 would require 20 years. University of Alabama Geneticist Roy Curtiss III has developed an even more feeble strain. Back in 1974, Curtiss urged a halt to experiments designed to create new combinations of DNA in E. coli. Now Curtiss says research with the K-12 strain poses "no danger whatsoever."

These findings are reassuring. Still, they do not confront a problem that lends heat to the arguments about control--the general question of whether it is wise or moral to tinker with genetic engineering, a field whose promise is based on a still incompletely understood potential for creating new forms of life in the laboratory.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.