Ethicists ask scientists
to ponder research consequences
BY MITCH LESLIE
Scientists have a habit of
springing unsettling discoveries on an unprepared public,
which must then struggle with social, legal and ethical
repercussions. But two years ago when molecular
biologists began research that could ultimately enable
scientists to create new forms of life, they broke form
and sought guidance from a panel of ethicists led by
Mildred Cho, PhD, of the Stanford Center for Biomedical
Ethics.
While finding no grounds
to suggest prohibiting the research, the ethicists
nonetheless recommended a pause for contemplation and
public deliberation because the work raises so many
sticky questions -- even possibly leading to a new
definition of life. And the researchers -- from The
Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) and Celera
Genomics, both based in Rockville, Md., and the
University of North Carolina -- have agreed to halt their
work pending the outcome of further discussions.
At first glance, it's hard
to see what all the fuss is about. The scientists -- led
by gene sequencing virtuoso Craig Venter, now at Celera
Genomics -- merely wanted to determine the smallest
number of genes necessary to keep an organism alive, the
so-called minimal genome. At the level of pure research,
identifying this set of genes could help answer questions
about the origin of life, the evolution of bacteria and
the control of bacterial metabolism.
However, success would
also bring far-reaching practical and ethical
consequences. For one thing, scientists might eventually
use the knowledge to design and assemble new organisms
from scratch -- in other words, to create life.
Custom-built microbes that slurp up toxic waste or pump
out drugs or other useful chemicals would be a boon. But
by applying the same technology, someone with an interest
in mayhem could synthesize a ferocious biological weapon.
Recognizing these and
other vexing possibilities, the genome scientists called
for ethical help. "This was initiated by the
scientists, which is unusual," said Cho, who is a
senior research scholar at the Center for Biomedical
Ethics. An unrestricted grant from the TIGR Foundation
allowed the creation of a panel that included Cho and
colleagues from the University of Pennsylvania and Waco
University.
Fresh in everyone's memory
was the brouhaha that erupted three years ago after
Scottish scientists unveiled Dolly the sheep, the first
mammal cloned from an adult cell. As reporters speculated
about who would be the first person cloned, politicians
rushed before the cameras to condemn human cloning and to
demand a ban, which was quickly enacted in the U.S. and
many other countries.
Ethicists were just as
surprised as everyone else by Dolly. "Attention to
the direction in which cloning research was headed before
Dolly's creation would have better served society than
the overreaction that followed," Cho and colleagues
wrote in the December 10 issue of Science.
Instead of scrambling to
catch up, this time the ethicists were involved from the
start and had an opportunity to explore the ramifications
of minimal genome research before any scientific results
were divulged, Cho pointed out. As the genome scientists
worked to identify the genetic requirements for life, the
ethicists deliberated and debated. The two groups made no
attempt to influence each other's work and ended up
publishing simultaneously.
By knocking out, one at a
time, every gene in the simplest known bacterium, the
researchers pared down the list of essential genes to
around 300. Though formidable technical obstacles prevent
scientists from putting together designer organisms
today, this list of genes could be the first step in that
direction.
For their part, the
ethicists concluded that even if the research progressed
to the point where scientists could design new organisms,
there was no religious or ethical reason for
automatically banning the work. However, Cho cautioned
that the panel only considered Western religious
traditions in making their decision. They hope to
incorporate non-Western beliefs in future studies, she
said.
The research raises other
questions that society should face before work progresses
further, the panel concluded. For example, now that we
know the minimum requirements for life, should we
redefine life as the presence of a particular set of
genes? That would have important ramifications, the
ethicists wrote, because any definition of life is bound
to get entangled in the longstanding debate over
abortion, as well as in newer disputes over the use of
embryonic stem cells and genetically engineered
organisms. And if we adopt a gene-based definition of
human life, will we then have to grant human status to
hybrid organisms containing human DNA?
A pure reductionist
approach like this is cause for concern in other ways,
the panel stated. For one, though reductionism is a
powerful way of understanding nature, it is
scientifically incomplete and sometimes leads to
erroneous conclusions. Moreover, a reductionist approach
to defining life is bound to raise the hackles of
scientists and non-scientists who are dismayed by a
"Genes-R-Us" attitude. "There is serious
danger that the identification and synthesis of minimal
genomes will be presented by scientists, depicted by the
press or perceived by the public as proving that life is
reducible to or nothing more than DNA," the group
wrote.
The ethicists hope they
have started a wide-ranging discussion. "One of the
things we are trying to do is to involve disciplines
outside science and ethics, such as social science and
religion," Cho said. She is also keen to get input
from the biotech industry, which could reap huge rewards
from this technology, and from the public. Stanford and
other institutions could play a role at this stage as the
"junction" between academic experts and the
public, perhaps through town hall-style meetings, Cho
said.
Cho said the ethicists are
far from finished and plan further discussions to refine
and expand their conclusions. There are many issues left
to ponder, she said, such as the adequacy of current laws
and the views of a broader range of religions. SR
|
