A Legal Perspective On The Control Of The Technology Of Genetic Engineering
| Published date | 01 July 1981 |
| Date | 01 July 1981 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1981.tb02749.x |
| Author | Yvonne Cripps |
THE
MODERN LAW REVIEW
Volume
44
July
1981
No.
4
A
LEGAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE CONTROL
OF
THE TECHNOLOGY
OF
GENETIC ENGINEERING
A.
THE
TECHNOLOGY
RECENT discoveries in the field of molecular biology that is
popularly known as genetic engineering have given rise to
a
considerable amount of concern and debate both among scientists
and in the wider community. The controversy serves to illustrate
that genetic engineering experiments are of special importance
because they pose unique and unpredictable threats to human
life,’ to the environment and to agriculturally based economies.
Ironically, those threats are counterbalanced by important medical,
environmental and agricultural benefits which include the bulk
production of human hormones such as insulin, somatostatin and
somatotropin.
Public interest was focused
on
this technology when Professor
Paul Berg of Stanford University and
11
of his colleagues issued
a
statement in which they expressed concern about the potential
dangers of certain types
of
genetic engineering re~earch.~ The
statement, which has come to be known as “the Berg letter,”
was met with a mixed resp~nse.~ It was hailed by some commen-
1
The techniques that are encompassed by this term generally involve recom-
binant D.N.A. experiments. Recombinant D.N.A. research consists
of
the com-
bination
of
molecules
“
of different biological origin by any methods that overcome
natural barriers in mating and recombination, to yield molecules that can be
propagated in some host cell, and the subsequent study of such molecules.” See
“
Report and Recommendations of the European Molecular Biology Organisation
Standing Advisory Committee on Recombinant D.N.A.” Second Meeting
(1976).
p.
3.
2
See
“
Dicing With Nature: Three Narrow Escapes
”
(1977)
Science
378.
Many
genetic engineering experiments are carried out on the
E.
coli
bacterium which, in
its most common form, inhabits the human gut.
3
See
“
Genetic Engineers Make Human Insulin,”
New Scientist,
September
14,
1978,
p.
747;
“
Genetic Engineers Plug Brain Gene Into Bacteria,”
New Scientist,
November
10,
1977,
p.
333
and
“
E.
coli
Makes
a
Vital Hormone,”
Time,
July
30.
1979,
p.
38.
See Berg
et al.,
“
Potential Biohazards of Recombinant D.N.A. Molecules
”
(1974)
Science,
p.
303.
See Goodfield,
Playing God
(1977).
pp.
94
et seq.;
Rogers,
Biohazard
(1977).
pp.
45
et seq.
and Cripps,
Controlling Technology: Genetic Engineering and the Law
(1980),
pp.
24
et seq.
The letter called for
a
temporary ban on particular categories
of
genetic engineering experiment.
VOL.
44 (4)
369
1
370
THE MODERN LAW REVIEW
[Vol.
44
tators as an enlightened recognition of the risks involved in a
dangerous new technology. Others were of the opinion that it
represented an unwarranted reaction to the use of techniques which
were not likely to result in harm to the community.
In February of 1975 a multi-national conference was convened
at Asilomar in California for the purpose of discussing the issues
that had been raised
in
the letter. Most
of
the countries which
were conducting genetic engineering research at the time responded
to that discussion by formulating non-mandatory guidelines for
the control of the newly developed genetic techniques.
In
the
United States the publication
of
a set
of
guidelines by the National
Institutes of Health6 was followed by the introduction of 17
“Recombinant
D.N.A.”
Bills into the Senate and the
House
of
Representatives between February 1977 and January 1978. Although
the Bills lapsed with the expiration of the ninety-fifth Congress,
the United States was one of the few countries to contemplate
legislative control in the early stages
of
the debate. Such control
is now under consideration in many jurisdictions including Holland,
Ireland, Norway, West Germany and New Zealand.
On
May
22,
1978, with the promulgation
of
the Health and
Safety (Genetic Manipulation) Reg~lations,~ Britain became the
first country in the world to regulate genetic engineering by legis-
lative means. The regulations have, however, been severely
criticised by members of the scientific community
on
the basis that
they represent an unacceptable inroad into freedom of scientific
inquiry.*
It
has also been claimed that the risks that relate
to
the use of genetic engineering techniques are not as significant as
might have been thought 9-an argument which
is
reminiscent of
comments that have been made in the context of the nuclear
debate.
Some of the most strident calls for freedom from control were
heard at
a
meeting which was held in April of last year at Wye
College in Kent. The Conference, which attracted delegates from
31 countries, was concerned primarily with risk assessment.
A
substantial majority of the genetic engineers who attended con-
cluded that restrictive controls should be relaxed because the
dangers of the research had been exaggerated in the Berg letter.
Berg has agreed that he may have overestimated the risks that
are involved in genetic engineering but he has pointed out that the
views that were expressed at the Wye Conference were not based
~~ ~
6
N.I.H.,
“
Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant D.N.A. Molecules,’’
41
Federal Register, July 7, 1976, 27901. See also
43
Federal Register, December
22, 1978, 60080 and
45
Federal Register, January 29, 1980, 6724.
7
U.K.
Statutory Regulations, NO. 752. Similar regulations have since been
promulgated in Yugoslavia.
8
For example, see Lewin, “Genetic Engineers Seek Freedom From Controls,”
New Scientist,
April
5,
1979, p. 3;‘
9
Zdem
and Wolstenholme, British Solution to Genetic Engineering,”
New
Scientist,
March 29. 1979, pp. 1037, 1038.
To continue reading
Request your trial