Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 3/23/84; site cbosgd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxz!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!rbg From: rbg@cbosgd Newsgroups: net.misc,net.med,net.religion,net.research,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Is genetic research too far? Message-ID: <151@cbosgd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Jul-84 09:43:33 EDT Article-I.D.: cbosgd.151 Posted: Mon Jul 23 09:43:33 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 00:29:46 EDT References: <284@ihu1e.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 51 > But if you define natural selection as a process that's supposed >to weed out the negative traits in a species, humans are fighting it on >many fronts. Only in man, and the species he's chosen to domesticate, are >genetic traits that would normally be fatal, allowed to survive and >be propagated. >Jerry Nowlin >ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin This is not a very good definition of natural selection. Natural selection attempts to produce species which are maximally adaptable. The more niches to which the species can adapt, the better its reproductive success. There is also a premium on diversity in the gene pool: some new environment may require genetic contributions which were not previously optimal. Besides, the hemophiliac kid next door may be our next Einstein. Right now, our medicine is capable of treating lots of genetic disorders. Future generations of geneticists might be able to actually alter our DNA to patch those defects. This will obviously require extreme caution (wouldn't you be cautious about trying to patch a working program developed over several billion years). But genetic engineering isn't going to go away. >opponents of genetic research were recently able to get a federal judge >to issue an injunction barring two Berkeley scientists from proceeding >with experiments that had already been approved by the recombinant DNA >advisory committee of the National Institutes of Health As far as I know, what these scientists wanted to do was to release into some test fields some geneticly engineered bacteria which were designed to reduce the vulnerability of potatoes to frost. It turns out that the ordinary bacteria in that environment nucleate ice crystal formation. They have gone through extensive testing in protected environments already. The time has come to see some benefit to society from our public research funds. It is also worth noting that private companies aren't required to submit to NIH review. This is where some greater regulation might be in order. I think there are some bills in Congress to govern release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment, and there are discussions about jurisdiction going on between the different agencies which might regulate: EPA, FDA, Agriculture and others. I think it is laudable that the genetic engineers themselves proposed a hiatus in their research and discussed how to minimize the hazards and regulate themselves. As far as I know, no other comparable group of researchers has ever done this. Rich Goldschmidt Nothing in life (that's worth much) is guaranteed UUCP: {ucbvax|ihnp4|decvax|allegra}!cbosgd!rbg ARPA: cbosgd!rbg@Berkeley.ARPA