In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 44.2 (2001) 159-161



[Access article in PDF]

Editors' Introduction to the Symposium on the 25th Anniversary of the Asilomar Conference


This issue of Perspectives in Biology and Medicine contains 10 papers from the Asilomar Symposium on Science, Ethics, and Society, which was held in February 2000 at the conference site in California that has become eponymous for the discussion of scientific policy issues. Twenty-five years earlier, more than 150 individuals, mostly scientists in the then-nascent field of molecular biology, had met at Asilomar for a Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules. That meeting was held in response to growing concern about the safety of the newly emerging technologies, which some scientists feared might lead to the creation of new micro-organisms that could have devastating public health or ecological effects. This conference, cited in the current Symposium as Asilomar 2 (because of an earlier meeting at this location, on the threat of laboratory viruses to produce cancer, now called Asilomar 1) has long been considered a landmark in the evolution of social awareness and the assumption of responsibility in the biomedical research community. The recent meeting, Asilomar 3, was designed to examine the lessons of the 1975 conference and to consider whether a similar kind of dialogue would be helpful in resolving current controversies, such as those related to the human genome project, genetic engineering of organisms, and genetic therapies. [End Page 159]

Although many of the papers in this issue briefly review the background, format, and immediate impact of Asilomar 2, we have minimized this discussion, since detailed histories of this event can be found elsewhere (see for example Fredrickson [1991, 2001] and references therein). Similarly, we have not included many excellent papers presented at Asilomar 3 dealing with such currently controversial issues as genetically modified organisms and gene therapy because these topics are rapidly changing and have their own extensive literatures. Rather, we have chosen to present papers that will facilitate thinking about new formats that might be appropriate for the discussion and resolution of potential problems arising from the extraordinarily rapid developments that are now occurring in the biomedical sciences, especially those branches using concepts and technologies of genetics.

Thus, most of the manuscripts we are publishing here do not focus on these new genetic controversies themselves, but rather on the evaluation of the lessons learned from the response of the scientific community to the concerns of the mid-1970s, and on whether the mechanisms then developed would be useful today. These critiques, including several by those who were participants--indeed, even organizers--at Asilomar 2, are frank and diverse in their conclusions. To some, the response of the key researchers in this field, which led to a voluntary moratorium on certain types of experiments, the convening of the 1975 Recombinant DNA Conference, and the recommendation that a Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee be created, represents a model for the discussion and resolution of difficult scientific issues. The outcome of these processes--the gradual loosening of the self-imposed restrictions and the eventual blossoming of the field of molecular genetics--is for them the proof of principle. Others, however, including some of the participants at Asilomar 2, are not sure that the original process was optimal, or even desirable. This controversy itself will likely be the subject of debate for some time.

The main criticism of the Asilomar process--then and now--is that scientists used it to strengthen their "autonomy" in making decisions that ought to be societal. While there is general agreement that the 1975 Asilomar meeting made a large contribution to the resolution of a major scientific policy issue, it was clearly the consensus at the 2000 meeting that perceptions of science and of scientists have changed so drastically over the last quarter century that it is virtually inconceivable that a similar format could be successful today. Almost everyone at Asilomar 3 agreed to the need now for much greater public input--not only from the press but also from the vastly more diverse constituencies of...

pdf

Share