 We have mini-concerts every day right after chapel Five days a week plus Sunday It pleases me to welcome to the platform The next lecturer Christian Anfanson Will be introduced by John Lamert One of our younger colleagues in the biology department It's all yours John For anyone who has studied biochemistry Dr. Anfanson studies and protein chemistry are familiar I even recall a question in a biochem exam about his work that I got right But some of you a good number I suspect are not aware of his important contributions to our knowledge of how proteins function in the life of a cell Essential to a cell's activities are enzymes molecules which change other molecules They act as catalysts accelerating chemical reactions without themselves being altered Enzymes are protein molecules Proteins are molecules of life that are constructed from building blocks called amino acids From a selection of 20 amino acids a myriad of different enzymes are synthesized in the cell Each enzyme having its own action The ability of an enzyme to change another molecule or several molecules is associated with its three-dimensional structure or confirmation Each enzyme as a protein has its own well-defined characteristic shape That is the proteins chain of amino acids are folded into a compact globular form Dr. Anfanson in a series of experiments addressed the question of the source of information for the unique folding of a protein chain His studies showed that the instructions Specifying the complex twisting and folding of an enzyme molecule is contained in its amino acid sequence The amino acids and their ordered arrangement interact with each other in the surrounding milieu to create the proteins particular shape In 1972 Dr. Anfanson was a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in chemistry He was cited for his pioneering investigations that led to the fundamental concept of molecular biology sequence determines shape He once described his discoveries as follows It struck me recently that one should really consider the sequence of a protein molecule about to fold into a precise geometric form as a line of melody written in cannon form and So designed by nature to fold back upon itself creating harmonic cords of interaction consistent with biological function Relating protein structure with enzyme function has continued to be a research Interest of Dr. Anfanson He has recently begun to study some remarkable bacteria that live in flumes of extremely hot water that spew up from the Pacific Ocean floor What is particularly fascinating about these bugs is that he grows them in a fired up autoclave, which is a fancy pressure cooker These temperatures greatly exceed those which irreversibly alter the shape of enzymes and cells such as ours For the past several years. Dr. Anfanson has also been involved in catalyzing interactions between his present academic home Johns Hopkins University and industry The quantum burst of discoveries and techniques of molecular biology over the past decade is attracted industry to market the products from cloned Bacteria containing the genetic information to synthesize human insulin interferon and growth hormone The Gulf which previously separated academia and industry is rapidly being breached Dr. Anfanson will speak to us this afternoon on bioengineering short-term optimism and long-term risk Dr. Chris Anfanson. Thank you very much Before I begin I suppose I really should Should consider the sacrilege that was created by Karen the backs earlier about admitting that one of her parents was Norwegian It so happens that my mother's family lived in an apartment house owned by my father's family during her young years Located in Bergen, Norway So I give you two barrels of the same Same sacrilege And I won't tell any Swedish jokes You will says you will see in this lecture I Share the enthusiasm that most people have About the short-term value of the important developments that will take place because of the developments in slicing and slicing of genes or DNA But in the long run that I have some worries which I'll pass on as we go along Most most of us whatever our background or occupation Do not hesitate to make profound statements on philosophical matters and ethical matters and This particular subject manipulating life medical advances in human responsibility is ideal for crystal ball gazing by everybody the technology of gene transfer and evolutionary consequences are Unpredictable and it would be very difficult to rule out any reasonable prognostications Quite by accident. I came across a lecture by an old friend Aaron's chain Who shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery and production of penicillin and in this lecture? He gives his opinion on the use of genetic engineering in man. This was a lecture given just six years ago in 1977 I Would like to quote a remark from this lecture Who has managed it and he was in a very reasonable and believable person? He says there exists no method at present nor is there the likelihood that one will be discovered in the foreseeable future By which you would be possible to alter the nucleotide sequence and thereby the genetic properties in any gene Of any mammalian cell in a controlled manner, which might be termed genetic engineering Any speculations of such a process may be near at hand and could influence the heredity of man must be dismissed as science fiction that was just six years ago and I must say I thought of that kind of Situation this morning during Lou Thomas's talk because he seemed to think that it would be millennia before Some things happen. I don't believe I think it's going to happen next month anyway The unpredictability of discover discovery in a fast-moving field such as mammalian genetics is underlined By recent observations in exactly the field of research that professor chain considers in this quotation most of us have read about or heard about the production of giant mice by genetic engineering in these experiments the gene for the mouse growth hormone was Physically injected into mouse eggs that had been fertilized and the eggs were then allowed to mature in utero and recipient mother mice the resulting animals From what I've heard look more like rats and mice and the whole experiment is Very interesting and actually somewhat amusing The next step of course will be a set of similar experiments on cattle and sheep and As I understand that these are now going on here and there and other animals that might be of interest to mankind the very existence of the giant mouse experiment Immediately predicts I believe that similar experiments could be done with humans We're not that different from mice the controlled injection of the gene for human growth hormone into fertilized human ova Could easily lead in 20 years or so to a Minnesota football team made up of nine-foot players And I'm sure every citizen and the Twin Cities would contribute to this worthy Experiment the experiments. I've just mentioned how a certain humorous quality and in spite of that I will Later on in this lecture take a rather gloomy view of the possible undesirable consequences of Genetic engineering has applied to man Being a scientist myself I have some insight into what makes a research worker tick the qualities that Characterize and motivate a good scientist do not necessarily have any bearing on the ethical or sociological sequelae and his discoveries An investigator who is worth his salt will attack an interesting problem for its own sake and With increasing enthusiasm as the project proceeds I'm sure for example to Enrico Fermi when he discovered the consequences of slow neutron bombardment of atoms or Auto Han when he studied the fission of heavy atoms did not for a moment think ahead to the Hiroshima bomb or for that matter to the difficulties that sooner or later Probably will present themselves in connection with nuclear power In my view as long as there are medical advances to be made and Diseases to cure or alleviate Research workers in the biomedical field will continue to explore all the promising leans Before considering the many beneficial aspects of genetic engineering And I hate to use that word because nobody likes it, but that's what I've been Using so I'll continue. I would like to continue just a little longer on the topic of the responsibility of the scientist for his own discoveries I am sure that any reasonable scientist would fight against the use of his research products for thoughtless or criminal ends Although no set of rules has yet been devised for the control of experimental genetic manipulation of human beings I Would guess that such a code will eventually be devised and Will of course depend on the cooperation of investigators in this field The unfortunate fact is that the public Simply cannot imagine the rate of progress in a field like genetic engineering and It might be very difficult to devise rules and regulations that would be sufficiently flexible and Ocoron to keep up with advances in knowledge and clinical trial Even with a high level of understanding and cooperation One can imagine situations in which control would be deliberately sabotaged Consider for example the deranged scenarios that existed in the concentration camps in World War two If current techniques had been easily available I'm convinced that experimenters in those camps would almost certainly have tried modification of human fertilized eggs by exposure to purified genes Either human or perhaps even from other species or to heterogeneous mixtures of DNA fragments and I Think this is going to be come simpler and simpler as time goes on at the moment the The only technique that has any reasonable chance of working very smoothly is the micro injection of Genetic of gene pieces into eggs, but new techniques are being developed whereby For example one can make a slurry of calcium phosphate With the DNA and expose cells to such a slurry and the DNA will be taken up so in principle and It seems like something one could do if you had enough backing in time one could visualize Transfer genetic material into the genomes of human over In a relatively straightforward way The technique at the present time is limited as I mentioned by the shortage of normally shed over but This obviously could easily be speeded up, and I'm sure it would have been in The concentration camps for example by simply procuring ovaries and taking the ova and using them as a larger dose I Apologize for this gory example, but I do feel that rules will have to be promulgated and some worldwide control system will have to be devised to restrict misuse at the moment World peace and the golden rule are about all we have to help us I must add that even though I feel that regulations must be invented I do not predict more than mild success and here I get very gloomy indeed The situation reminds me very much of Murphy's law Which says that if something bad can happen if you wait long enough it probably will So what we have to do is to make sure that we can detect the bad things and stop them from happening before They get too far There's nothing nasty about Biogenetic manipulation of humans I was thinking of during Karen LeBach's talk how one can ennoble one's thoughts by quoting from the scripture and There happens to be a Section in Genesis. I think it's chapter 32 verse 20 actually you remember where There is described the situation in which Jacobs two wives Rachel and Leah were involved with Producing children for Jacob Leah had managed to Produce about six and Rachel had just been absolutely dead as a doornail. No, no products whatsoever so Leah got pregnant with her seventh and God who fell very sorry for Rachel because she's so badly wanted to have at least a boy for her husband God did a genetic engineering manipulation he transferred the Early ovum a two-stage or to a two-cell or four-cell stage fetus from Leah to Rachel and Furthermore changed the sex from female to male you can check it out in the Torah if you'd like So it's been done a long time ago by very authoritative people Well for a change in pace, let me review some of the good things that have happened in this area Employing the very sophisticated procedures of gene cloning in bacterial cells Which I think everybody agrees by now Is not likely to be a great danger as many people have pointed out bacteria have been modifying their chromosomal or their gene structure for a long long time and Everything we can think of has probably been tried out before just by natural biological reactions The procedures for the controlled introduction of specific human genes in Rapidly growing species such as E. Coli, which is the main bacterium we harvest in our GI tract can be used for Manufacturing and secreting a variety of substances of interest and this whole development has become the basis of a flourishing industry Involving a lot of biotechnology companies None of them making very much money yet, but I think they eventually some of them will eventually make some money the stocks go up anyway, that's I mean and Most of these Materials that are manufactured and secreted by these bacteria Are not to do not Offer any real serious risk to humans One very popular item is the protein known as interferon, which is produced by human cells many different kinds of cells when they are challenged by a virus and This interferon has been shown rather convincingly by now to be effective against certain viruses hepatitis B conjunctivitis Some forms of herpes and in some forms of cancer probably that's not for sure My colleagues and I spent about 10 years working on the isolation and purification of interferon to get material out that we could sequence and then attempt to synthesize by classical organic methods, but suddenly the the DNA recombinant flood landed on our neck and we essentially just gave up because It's so relatively so much easier to introduce the gene for interferon into a bacterial cell and allow it to then manufacture the substance and Isolated from these bugs interesting enough is another thing I just heard about very recently interferon might also be very useful in making enough antibody for injecting into animals to make enough antibody against interferon to use for Removing the large excess of interferon that appears in certain diseases that are extremely hard to handle I don't know how absolutely solid this is, but I believe the experiments are dependable The the experimenters speak of lupus erythematosis and rheumatoid arthritis, which both of which Bring on high levels of interferon in the circulating blood and may have something to do with the the dangerous aspects of the diseases another substance that has been prepared by gene cloning and bacterial cells is insulin An obvious one to pick. It's a small molecule relatively and the Production has gone fairly well the clone gene is that was used is the human insulin gene because the insulin that is Isolated from the pancreas of other animals than the human and used in diabetes can occasionally lead to serious immunological problems Most of the substances so far produced in bacterial species cultures have been fairly small proteins or polypeptides It seems certain that the procedures will be improved to a point where large human proteins Can be made in quantity as well as small Many human diseases result from the absence of a particular gene And because of this absence none of the protein that is coded for by that gene appears And can serve in its normal way so that one type of therapy that one can think of for DNA FR gene deficiency diseases is to prepare the Protein that that gene Codes for purified and put it into the human circulation And this can be done And it's one of those things that might take a little while but not too long In some cases genetic diseases attributable to the absence of critical genes in the chromosomes of patients Involve only one tissue or at the most very few tissues For example, sickle cell hemoglobin is produced by a type of cell in the ab in the bone marrow Which lacks the normal hemoglobin gene These cells produce a form of hemoglobin that causes severe damage pain Frequently earned early death because of its propensity for precipitating out of solution within the red cell at low oxygen pressures A large number of single Single gene deficiency diseases are known that result from the inability to produce a specific protein in the cell cells of only one tissue such as brain or something else and In such cases one would like to try to introduce the correct gene Into the cells in question without having this genetic material inserted into other cells of the body that are not associated With this particular gene protein system Research is now underway on Techniques that might permit this targeted delivery of Genetic material The experiments are based on the fact that all cells in the body have on their surface specific receptor sites Which can only be which can be recognized only by certain molecules So one could in principle attach the missing gene which one could isolate To a substance that would recognize the surface of the cell type in question and thus it would deliver the gene to its proper location It's still a ways off as some of the other things are but if you can imagine it you could probably do it Now of course should a circulating gene into this type be taken up by tissues other than the one For which the targeted gene was devised it could create a genetic defect much worse Than the defect the gene therapy was intended to correct Lewis Thomas to wake him up Lewis Thomas in his book the Medusa in the snail That's pointed out that current advances in the understanding of biological phenomena Make it possible to begin thinking about a human society free of disease Because of the nature of science and of scientists Research directed at the achievement of such a medically utopian state Will undoubtedly continue in an inexorable and scientifically fascinating way not only through the use of the newer methodologies for manipulating and Modulating life, but also through the more classical techniques of synthesis and testing of drugs and so on However the concept of a world nearly free of disease Considered in the context of our current sociological inadequacies It's very frightening the uninhibited increase in the population of the world and the almost inevitable increase in hunger and crowding are Really the main problem It's unfortunate therefore that the study of the modulation of human behavior and of the rate of human multiplication are not subjects with the Level of popularity enjoyed by medical science and the curing of the sick The field of biotechnology is most heavily concerned As I mentioned with the bioengineering of bacteria to produce useful items such as interferon Surprisingly little effort or money have been spent on Using the new biotechnology in areas of food production and population control We tend to forget that the number of sick people in the world Is really quite small when compared with a number of relatively healthy people who go to bed hungry every night For this reason I strongly advocate a greater attention to the application of biotechnology to our food sources the subject does not have the Crowd appeal of cancer cures or even drug giant mice, but perhaps the manipulation of plants Rather than human life might ultimately prove to be the most significant direction for research to take Let me Let me return for a moment to my central theme the misuse or overuse of scientific discovery Scientists are motivated generally by one intellectual interest to the thought of making a living in a pleasant profession Three the desire for satisfaction of personal ambitions and the need for accolades and for Societal forces most frequently stemming from military and economic pressures. I Maintain that we will find it impossible to legislate against scientific research of any particular sort Including genetic engineering genetic engineering by simply admonishing or lecturing to people who have no real desire to listen It appears to me that only political economic and occasionally Ethnic ethnic or religious pressures can force large-scale changes in behavior patterns It is possible that the physical mental and psychological makeup of the human animal Is such that there will be no solution to the dilemma of how to preserve the human species in the backwash of his own inventions One factor that might help is the control of population and if possible Diminution to a much smaller level and now exists on the surface of the planet Since it would be preferable to achieve a greatly diminished population by some means other than systematic nuclear bomb dropping and International effort to educate people of the world in the direction of a negative population rate should be a first priority parenthetically There might be a considerable resistance to such a move by those whose fortunes depend on an ever greater population of purchasers That's all right. I Feel free in the context of the conference title to speak of population control Because much of the problem might be solved by products of contemporary biomedical research and biotechnology There is of course the eternal problem of people in the impoverished agricultural areas Desiring to have large families particularly strong males with a liking for digging in the field We might need entirely new answers to world food production and distribution in this connection I am reminded of a conversation. I had recently with professor Denny Powers at Johns Hopkins Who is intrigued with the use of growth hormone genes in the production of giant fish? He points out that numerous countries including China Israel and number of others Raise a great deal of animal protein in the form of fish in ponds a Beautiful blend of nutritional need and modern bioengineering would be the introduction of the gene for fish growth hormone Into the fertilized eggs of the edible species With the subsequent establishment of a biologically competitive subspecies Something that could be done in modern biology almost anything goes Some months ago. Dr. Esperinzen our organizer wrote to each member of the panel Listing some preliminary reflections on the theme of the conference Many of his reflections took the form of questions Which I should like to try to answer along the lines of the remarks that I've just made Dr. Esperinzen asks, what do we want to know about life prostitutes? Everything I would say He asks are there limits we cannot or should not violate. I Would answer this question no in the context of basic research aimed at understanding More about our universe and about the nature of living things At that time when the application of certain classes of scientific observations is contemplated Careful control by suitable panels of Academic legal governmental experts should be imposed Just how I don't know Are we disturbing the universe by our probes? I would say that we certainly are so far and not too bad a way But let me once again mention giant mice and nuclear bombs. There could be some very bad Sequelae to these Are we capable of carrying the burden of responsibilities for the new knowledge we are gaining? I would answer probably no to this question In the short run and during times when our planet is not being wracked by World Wars or devastating? Epidemics we seem to be able to manage pretty well. I Sincerely believe that we can maintain Adequate surveillance of the application of bioengineering to human beings so long as the Human hunger for power and material gain does not become overwhelming. I Think it would be difficult and inadvisable to attempt to control the normal progress of scientific research and Even application in my view the problems that will arise because of advances in human knowledge in General and biotechnology in particular Must be dealt with By those among us who are properly experienced in the moral legal scientific facets of society Thank you, thank you, Dr. Anfison our third conversation will will take place right away and we ask you to remain seated if you can and Submit questions to the ushers Thank you, this is a good one to start with I'll give you this question early on Your interest We will we'll begin up here and then take a few questions from the audience With an audience this size Sending up questions is not quite as bad as hoping to get something through public publishers Clearinghouse, you know It's almost so you take your chances I'll ask the panelists to respond first to dr. Anfison's lecture and if Dr. Thomas Dr. Anfison Quoted me as having said something overly optimistic about the prospects for medicine in the future leading to What I carefully said it was a relatively disease free society but raised at the same time Chris did The possibility That this might end up doing us more harm than good because of the population overpopulation problems involved if we did this sort of thing in our kind of society and and got rid of part of the Of the list that I ticked off this morning cancer coronary disease strokes Dementia Longevity is not a problem with dementia you can go on for Into your 90s totally brainless If we got rid of That class of diseases, which I think our society tends to regard As the really important ones it would have only a marginal effect on our population It would add three or four years I guess To the lifespan and it wouldn't take care at all of the 56 odd thousand death that occur on the highways every year and The numerous other other hazards to our health including alcoholism and suicides and homicides So I don't think we would create a brand new population problem What would we do in what we call the third world if we really did? Learn something about the diseases that afflict that huge Population on the planet I Think that if we did something Would be relatively simple in the way of introducing technologies for Preventing perinatal death The net effect given a few years Would be a leveling off of the population because I am told by demographers that most of the pressure Is not so much to have five or six strong sons to work in the field is to have one son or one child out of seven survive the first five years of life and I think until something is done about the apprehension that children will be lost in the first years There'll be little incentive for undertaking birth control measures What would happen though if we also introduced an effective pharmacology of some kind for getting rid of schistosomiasis and philoriasis and tropanosomiasis and The long range of parasitic ailments that don't kill people early on but tend to incapacitate and weaken them we would do a lot for Productivity I think we probably would do a lot for human happiness And I doubt that we would do too much to the population curves because these are also Chronic diseases that last a long time and don't interfere don't interrupt life until until fairly late on I think the net result therefore isn't doesn't frighten me I think that the extension of the kind of of medical science that that we now have available here the improvement of it The transfer of it to the third world if it's done carefully And if it's done without trying to export the University of Minnesota hospitals systems into Every municipality in Africa and South America But if it is done so that we export a lot of bright young people who've been trained in primary Medicine and a lot of nurses. I think we could do a lot of good and we wouldn't we wouldn't bring about Anything new in the way of a population explosion population problems a bad one already. We're going to run out of Resources within according to some ecologists and an issue rather terrifying issue of science that crossed my desk about four weeks ago We run the risk of having within a century the greatest extinction that is a Viata of species that has occurred on the planet in 165 million years all due to man himself So we're in we're in trouble already And finally I'd like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Chris And maybe we should really be focusing our attention on that all together rather than Rather than on the problem of the mega mouse or the problem of the human with long arms if this technology We're invested heavily with a lot of government funding in agriculture We'd all be much better off and safer for for some time to come because if we could do something about Malnutrition in the third world we would be yards along in solving that population problem Dr. Anfanson there's a question from the audience that Focuses on these last remarks elaborate on ways of using genetics for controlling population and increasing food production Well increasing food production is easier in the question of For example doing the kind of work that's going on in many places now and in planting genes or putting the splicing genes into into root bacteria That populate the roots of plants and fix and produce ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen thereby giving them Good healthy plant that doesn't need fertilizer. We can make its own That's one sort of thing. There's a lot of that kind of work going on the population bit is something else again I did mention population, but How to use DNA recombinant methods for that is not very clear. I think Lou Thomas has made it has pointed out now that one could get rid of a lot of the tropical diseases eventually and Perhaps by in advanced agricultural techniques produce more food. So that's so many people would die of Caught your core and whatnot But the thing I can't buy is that this wouldn't cause a large population increase in Egypt now I think which is a relatively advanced country as I understand it One baby out of four survives something that level enormous death rate among very very young infants if that were Cut down in a place like Egypt and even more so in a place like the Sahara countries I would think the population of the world would increase considerably and We would reach another plateau Where they just wasn't enough food to go around so I'm in favor of Of giving every family that maintains a 1.8 Child per couple Average some sort of a prize, you know like a new Buick or something I think that kind of birth controls would be much better than more pharmacological birth control if there were some motivation Of one sort or another different societies would want different prices. Thank you There are three related questions from which about which I'd like Some brief comments from one or more of you they have to do with relationship between biotechnology and the business Community I'll read read them will the effect of patenting of gene transfer products Have an effect on the flow of scientific information that sort of question will the increased relationship between bio industry and academia I Mean that genetic research will be governed by the profit motive Will there be a some effect on the sharing of scientific information? due to competing businesses Does anyone want to comment on that? Dr. Thomas knows more about this. I can say something about it from what I've seen at Hopkins in the past year and a half Industrial corporations are very uptight about projects that involve Organisms because they are so easily transferred and so easily passed around We've been mixed up with one such contract recently. It hasn't quite been signed, but it will be shortly Where they point out that they simply Don't want us to transfer The bacteria or give the bacteria Without getting a signed statement saying that this will not be used for other than academic purposes. Okay That's usually can be done But it's pretty hard to prevent Passage of organisms usually if you get a letter from somebody in a company that's playing with bacterium X You can take the letter and cut it up and put it in a broth and grow out the bug that they're using at that company It's been done I don't Think it'll change the relationships between industry and university and universities very much because industry wants to support research that will make them money and In the end universities want money to support the research that they like to do It's sort of a trade-off pretty much. I don't think there's anything very evil when we're the other Anyone else wish to comment on that question? Okay? Further comments dr. Galen. I'd like to try and pierce dr. Anfinsons gloom. I hate to see such a lovely man. So a pessimistic Let me put the question this way It is true in any applied knowledge that the more powerful the the potentials Probably the more power powerful the potential for harm as well as for good So that when antisepsis occurred and we could do extensive surgery The the potential for surgery just exploded and all sorts of exciting things were done and all sorts of not so nice things were done radical mastectomies were done before we knew that these were the necessarily that Deforming an operation was necessary but then now we're at a point where plastic surgery allows the Reconstruction of the brass and all sorts of good things and then there's trivialization in New York now You have rhinoplasty's and tushy tucks and all sorts of trivialization of the thing With your concern with recombinant DNA and gene splicing is it simply the concern that this is such an awesome and marvelous piece of information that is about to be applied That I mean at least that's the feeling I get that that with something this powerful and this new We're almost like pastor and the germ theory that the potential for good is Extraordinary and the potential for evil is extraordinary. Is it simply you're all in the face of the new or is there something? special About the genetic material which I have never quite felt is there something special in this area that depresses you Well, I the thing that's special is that it's people and not Pug dogs, you know I'm convinced that the Change of the human genome can be brought about Experimentally and will we become more and more? Possible as time goes on and I'm really only concerned about this in terms of changing the human genome that is to say It's causing evolution in a sense. I can see for example introducing a Particular gene into a whole series of women and Have them bring forth the males and females and so on and so forth All of whom would now contain that gene if the gene wasn't a serious one a dangerous one And you would after a while have a subspecies In a sense I really it's almost not even a subspecies But with a little further change you could get By introducing still other genes and if you just didn't put one in but put in saying ten of the time You might get by with that We could have done this with surgery much simpler we could have decordicated we could have created with all our knowledge of The muscle-building steroids. We don't even do it. They do it to themselves the weight lifters We create kind of monstrous figures, but not not in the gene line. Why why are you more worried? Why am I worried? I mean we didn't do it with surgery We didn't create Decordicate animals to collect our garbage we could have we didn't manipulate people surgically to make them more powerful and less Thoughtful, why do you think it's because there you would do it one of the times, you know, okay you next you know whereas with with this kind of Gene implantation in the genome once it's done and successful in a particular case then from then on Mary Smith's kids are going to be like that particular change genome and You wouldn't need too many to set up a population. I Pick I'm talking about genes that are harmless, but you could easily visualize By mistake getting not knowing that an oncogene lived next door to the one you were putting in make a mistake or something like that new and new observations that are coming out every day and continually surprise and frightened by all sorts of crazy observations Why I made the prediction that it was unlikely to happen at any time in the foreseeable future with as far as Human beings are concerned. I simply can't imagine it. I suppose you can Cook up a scenario where we've got Hitler again and and all of that in the camps You'd have to you'd have to imagine something like that you'd have to imagine two things something like that kind of society with with madmen set loose from most of them from my profession and That is not caring about the outcome That would come from from the inevitable mistakes one after another and monstrosities But you also have to assume the expenditure by governments of a very substantial amount of money This is this is not something that crazy scientists are going to do in their basements. This would be this would be World-class NIH research, and I doubt that we're going to do it I guess I'm just worried about the fact that here we sit in 1983 October and we won't be around but before the world knows it. It's going to be 2083 and in those hundred years all hell could have broken loose. I'm not saying it's going to be bad in the next 10 years I'm just convinced By Murphy's law something's going to happen in the next 50 to 100 years. It'll be unpleasant Dr. Goodfield and Dr. Roepstein have something to say I see I'd like to ask dr. Anfison what he feels about the proposed Will the problem that seems to have arisen About the experiments in California as to whether one should now conduct on large-scale field trials Out of the laboratory the introduction of nif-bearing genes into plants. Do you think we are ready? For those trials to move outside the laboratory and go into the field You're talking now about changing the heredity of the bacteria that are symbiotic with plants. No We already can do that. There are certain things we can do like changing the nif But I believe that the fact I saw it in the science I think a couple of weeks back that there is a question that the scientists would now like to take this out of the laboratory and attempt to do major field files in a big big Minnesota size field and changing the crops and the question I have is Do you think would you be happy with that? Going on that next step now being taken with our present state knowledge Thomas we're just saying this these are disease resistant In in Israel they're doing a lot of work on modifying wheats by taking wheats that can live in extremely barrow barren salt rich soils and so on and so forth and and Not by genetic engineering, but by crossing my traditional breeding Doing this and then doing field trials and very soon. They're probably gonna have sizable amounts of seeds that will produce much more We're doing it by Ordinary crossing is no more severe than doing it by Gene incorporation I wouldn't think doctor doctor groves turn Well, the conversation has shifted a little from the subject that we were on a moment ago I wanted to say and I'll say very briefly in connection with that and then Raise another question. I can't pass on Beyond the question of the likelihood Human over insufficient numbers Being available for the kind of gene transfer operations that we're just being discussed To that is quantitatively and logistically To give rise to a serious problem in terms of gene pool dynamics And I think we need to look at that a little more carefully and perhaps I'll return to that tomorrow But I did want to raise a somewhat different question and that is I was a little surprised That Chris you put emphasis on the importance of doing something to change the directions of research emphasis from the medical to the agricultural In a sense, I mean you were suggesting that since I think we all know that to increase the amount invested in Agricultural research to the level say of what we now invest in medical research would take a very sizable Increment unless there was some transfer of funds between the two activities Moreover the point that I want to make is that As far as I'm aware We don't at the moment really have any good mechanism for deciding whether we want to do that And if we do want to do it We don't have any very good mechanism for implementing in the sense that in the current state of Our science planning in the United States now We don't very often raise the question of the relative investment to be made to Agricultural health and military science. We have no no forum for doing that in Congress these budgets are considered essentially separately by different committees within the Congress and We practically never asked whether we should shift our emphasis from say health to Agriculture and I assume that it would have to be at that level You certainly aren't suggesting I presume that Scientists should either be persuaded or should be told that they have to shift their research from health to Agriculture, how would you envision something of this kind being done assuming that it would desirable to do it? well as far as The current problem of world hunger wherever it occurs One of the biggest problems is not the availability of grain and some with the fact that once it's shipped someplace He gets eaten by rats certain in some countries The first part of your comment having to do with Whether it was feasible to think of More than experimental genetic engineering on human over is certainly a very good one about a thing that You know ovary banks could be become as popular as liver banks. I Keep forgetting that you're a professional Developmental physiologists I shouldn't say The agriculture thing is just it was an offhand statement And I was simply pointing out that there is a lot of interest at the moment in many universities in the modification of plant genomes or the introduction of new genes into the symbiotic bacteria This sounds good Karla Max The time for my comment has probably gone by so I would just like to point out that for those who think That such techniques would be used for evil only by a government such as that of Nazi Germany You really ignore the propensity of our own government for biological warfare and the possibility for these Techniques to be used in that regard. I have an interesting question here From someone who sees the manipulation of life issues in the daily scene of pastors health workers and parents Such matters as gene splicing seem not immediate to them and The questioner asks are there some issues connected with such matters as life support systems transplants and abortion, etc that shifts the discussion a bit but Is the and you may want to ponder it until tomorrow, but I think that there are many people who face immediate problems and We are dealing with very important issues that Come out of recent research and I don't want to shift from that, but I thought I In case somebody wanted to comment on the kinds of immediate issues that we're facing. I give you a chance I would only offer a word of apology to whoever you are It was originally my intention to deal primarily with prenatal diagnosis genetic counseling and genetic screening and With the ethical issues around those practices which are indeed hitting the people in your homes and schools and parishes and whatnot Because of the recent events I did change my focus all that I can offer to you Is that some of my thoughts on that are available in the little book that is available in the bookstore here? Thank you I'd like to put one more question Will the This is to you dr. Anfison the development of new organisms or much improved organisms affect the environment the planet in some negative way I presume the development of new improved organisms have a Deleterious effect on the environment. Is there any way to say ahead of time? It's hard to know what the word improve means in terms of Bacteria all sorts of Variants have been produced that are drug sensitive or drug insensitive or temperature sensitive It's that you can go on forever and change the physiological nature of a bacterium I guess you start thinking about this kind of question when you get up to something with four legs or three legs because The problem there is Is a more obvious one I mean world-free of cats or whatever I really don't know whether it's bad or good All right, thank you This is anyone wish to comment further I mean I'd like to tell the audience that we will have a chance for taking up Questions again from the panelists or for the panelists in the closing Panel tomorrow afternoon at 3 30 We can't take all the questions Into the discussion, but we'll try to select some of them that have come up for each of the speakers and I think We've had a good day of it Enjoy the rest of the evening. There are three events coming up Art show a concert and the firing lines and be with it