“BIOHAZARDS AT HARVARD,” screamed the cover of the June 8, 1976 issue of the Boston Phoenix.
“Scientists are about to start groundbreaking genetic experiments that create new life forms,” the subtitle warned, “and there are risks most people don’t really understand.”
This article kicked off a heated debate that would grip Cambridge for months, marking the moment genetic engineering became not just science but a public concern filled with worry.
Nowadays, cutting and splicing DNA is routine not only in Cambridge classrooms but also in farming and advanced medical treatments worldwide. But back then, before Harvard set up a lab for this work, scientists had to get past deep fears that this kind of genetic tinkering – recombinant DNA technology – could bring about those very “dangers” the Boston Phoenix talked about.
“No Harvard official can guarantee either the safety of the facility or the experiments done in them,” the article claimed. “In fact, several officials are convinced that some microorganisms will escape out of the containment facility.”
Cambridge Mayor Alfred E. Vellucci, known for his rocky relationship with Harvard (he once suggested turning Harvard Yard into a parking lot), jumped on this controversy fast and pushed for a public hearing on how safe this research really was.
“We may make a creation that slips beyond control and turns around to destroy the creator,” he said in his press release announcing the hearings. “An extremely small microorganism can be just as destructive as a full scale monster.”
The hearing on June 23, 1976 drew lots of curious locals to City Hall. It started with Cambridge Public High School students singing “This Land is Your Land” and included talks from professors and deans from Harvard and MIT. Former Harvard professor Walter “Wally” Gilbert ’53 recalled one City Hall official even showing up dressed as an American flag during it all.
The next month’s City Council meeting was jam-packed with people packed “to overflowing.” They voted to pause recombinant DNA research for three months – then extended that hold for another three months. The Council also set up something called the Cambridge Experimentation Review Board made up of citizens who’d weigh in on policies about recombinant DNA research for their city.
Over those following months, researchers at Harvard and MIT ran what was probably one of the first public relations efforts aimed at convincing both worried locals and skeptical fellow scientists that their work wasn’t dangerous.
Gilbert – who went on to share a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1980 for his work involving DNA – says these debates first happened behind closed doors at university meetings before spilling into public view.
Walter Gilbert ’53, who would share the 1980 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for DNA research involving DNA, remembers how discussions about whether recombinant DNA research was safe started “inside the University in several meetings” before reaching outside audiences. | By Lucy H. Vuong
“During the moratorium,” he explains, “we held meetings right there on Cambridge streets, set up info booths, even brought city council members into our labs.”
Some folks believed moving genes between species broke some sort of sacred rule – “God’s law” they called it – while other scientists saw swapping pieces of DNA between organisms as just part of normal experiments.
The professors took their arguments onto radio shows and spoke to crowds at places like Cambridge Unitarian Church or Harvard Science Center. A Crimson piece from back then mentioned there were even two booths set up at Mayor’s Marketplace near Kendall Square-one backing and another opposing this research.
The Safety for Cambridge Residents Committee went so far as to say these studies could cause more harm than nuclear bombs ever could.
“In case of an accident in nuclear weapons testing,” they wrote to The Cambridge Chronicle’s editor,”the end would at least be swift and merciful.. whereas with DNA testing.. the end might very well be lingering and painful.”
In spite of all concerns though-the city eventually gave researchers permission to move forward.
The Review Board reported its findings back to City Council by January 1977 after listening over 75 hours across more than 35 witnesses plus debating another 25 hours themselves. They unanimously agreed research could continue safely under rules only slightly stricter than those from NIH.
A month later nearly all these recommendations became law after another unanimous vote by City Council-and yes-even Vellucci voted yes despite being described as “irascible” after losing.
George M. Church-a genetics prof at Harvard-remembers being involved with recombinant DNA research right from day one when Gilbert advised him.
He calls Vellucci someone with “an eighth-grade education.” Still Church thinks fears about recombinant DNA were both exaggerated but also downplayed important risks; he’s firm about strong regulation though.
“I think they completely ignored willful manipulation-bioterrorism,” he notes. “Almost everything discussed was accidental release into environment.”
Todays impact? Huge-Church says it’s changed nearly every part medicine touches: gene therapies now help not just rare diseases but common ones too-including aging itself.
“It was a revolution.”
– Associate Magazine Editor Graham R. Weber can be reached at [email protected].
Source link
