Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA 1975 // WMHSMUN 30
Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA 1975
Dear Delegates,
It is my pleasure to welcome you all to the Asilomar Conference
on Recombinant DNA – a 1975 meeting of scientists, journalists,
lawyers, and government officials which changed the course of
biological engineering. My name is Ranjani Parthasarathy and I am
thrilled to serve as your director.
I would like to open with a brief personal introduction. I am a
second-year student here at the College, and I am majoring in
Biology and International Relations. I love learning languages, and
I’m living in the Spanish House this year – I hope to be familiar with
basic Arabic and Turkish before I graduate In addition to being part
of the W&M International Relations Club (which runs WMHSMUN),
I’m also a member of the Rowing Club, a co-founder of our
Classical Indian Dance team (Haasya), and the Historian for the
Undergraduate Honor Council.
Turning to the specifics of the Committee: this will be a fascinating
take on the meeting of minds which set informed guidelines for
biological research involving recombinant DNA. Each of the topics
elaborated upon below critiques a different facet of the challenges
faced by a researcher in this field. Ranging from far-fetched
scenarios like the engineering of a dangerous, antibiotic-resistant
Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA 1975 // WMHSMUN 30
bacterium which somehow escapes from the lab, to more hotly
contested topics such as the engineering of DNA from humans
or other complex organisms, this Conference promises to place a
variety of viewpoints in close contact and encourage lively debate
on scientific issues.
WMHSMUN requires that every delegate submits a position paper.
This paper must address the topics presented by the committee
through the lens of your position. For more information on what is
expected from position papers, there is a link on the WMHSMUN
website, under the “committees” tab. We highly suggest that you
use this tool in order to make your position paper as effective as
possible! For Specialized Agencies, we highly encourage you to
email your position paper to your chair before the first committee
session. If this cannot be done for any reason, you may submit
a hard copy to your dais at the beginning of the first committee
session.
If you have any questions about the Committee after reading this
background guide, please feel free to email me. I look forward
to seeing what each delegate proposes and what you all can
accomplish together over the WMHSMUN XXX weekend!
Ranjani Parthasarathy
Director, Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA 1975
[email protected]
Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA 1975 // WMHSMUN 30
I
t is the year 1975,
and molecular
Introduction biologists
& Background throughout
Information the developed
world have
voluntarily paused
experimentation involving recombinant
DNA due to fears concerning these
uncharted waters1. The Asilomar
Conference on Recombinant DNA is
being held in sunny California to address
concerns in the scientific community
regarding the scientific process, morality,
and safety in this new field of research.
DNA, an initialism of deoxyribonucleic
acid, is itself foundational to life. Often
referred to as the ‘blueprint of life,’ it
exists in every living organism2. The
central dogma of life, as stated by
Watson and Crick after their landmark
discovery of the structure of DNA,
explains the flow of information as
starting as genetic information, DNA, then
being transcribed into an intermediate
molecule, RNA, and finally becoming
realized as proteins.3
1 “The Recombinant DNA Debate,”
North Dakota State University, accessed
July 19, 2016, https://www.ndsu.edu/
pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/debate/
debate3.htm.
2 “DNA: the Blueprint for Life,” National
Information Society Learnership in
Ecological Informatics, accessed July
19, 2016, http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/
biodiversity/loe/page_08.htm.
3 “The Central Dogma,” Cold Spring
Harbor Laboratory, accessed July 19, 2016,
Discovery of DNA
Despite its ubiquitous presence in the
field of biology today, the first person
to take an interest in isolated DNA was
a chemist: Friedrich Miescher isolated
“nuclein,” DNA molecules, from pussoaked bandages in 18694. When its
chemical composition was uncovered,
however, it seemed far too simple to
serve as the design for the vast variety of
organisms that comprise the biosphere.
Proteins were first thought of as being
the true information underlying life, due
to their unique structures and functions.
Nevertheless, the unraveled structure
as proposed by Watson, Crick, Franklin,
Wilkins, and Donohue hinted at the true
complexity of this molecule5. The ability
of DNA to self-replicate – as each side
can serve as a template for the creation
of the other – is the basis of heritable
change, making recombinant DNA all
the more potent as a technology in this
modern era.
Recombinant DNA
The technological advance that
has prompted this forum is that of
recombinant DNA. Recombinant DNA
technology allows small fragments
– generally genes, the units of DNA
https://www.dnalc.org/view/15876-thecentral-dogma.html.
4 “The DNA Story,” Royal Society of
Chemistry, accessed July 23, 2016,
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/
Issues/2003/April/story.asp.
5 Ibid.
Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA 1975 // WMHSMUN 30
which code for specific proteins – of
foreign DNA to be integrated into a
host chromosome. These recombined
genes are then expressed; that is, the
desired proteins are produced by the
host organism6. It has been pioneered in
bacteria: with the bacterial chromosome,
or total DNA, serving as the majority of
the DNA present in the recombineered
bacterium, and single genes from other
organisms as the DNA that is spliced
into the now-transformed organisms.
In considering this technology, it is not
insignificant to note that at the rate our
knowledge is currently growing in this
field, it would not be unreasonable to
expect to have an understanding of the
composition of the human genome itself
by the turn of the millennium.
Ethics and Evaluation
Previous discussions about scientific
research on this scale have been driven
by animal rights groups outraged by the
prevalence of animal experimentation in
medical and chemical testing. They have
led to the passage of national legislation
which is considered by many to hinder
the free advance of scientific research,
and which is scientifically incomplete in
according protections to, e.g., rats and
mice but not birds or squid. One of the
unstated goals of this convocation of
scientists is to establish rational criteria
for experimentation with and creation
of recombinant DNA in a manner which
will not restrict research but which will
protect scientists and the public alike,
to a degree which will forestall the
creation of more restrictive legislation
that would place an additional burden on
researchers7.
N
otably, one
experiment
has already been
Topic I:
forestalled due to
Containment
concerns about
the potential
for transformed
organisms to escape the laboratory.
Paul Berg, at Stanford University,
recently planned to splice SV40 into E.
coli. Unengineered, Escherichia coli is a
typically harmless species of gut bacteria
that is well-studied and characterized.
SV40, on the other hand, is less benign.
SV40 is a simian virus (one which
originally targets monkeys) which has
been shown to cause cancerous tumors
in both monkey and human cell lines8.
The Berg lab has not stopped
6 “Herbert W. Boyer and Stanley N.
Cohen,” Chemical Heritage Foundation,
accessed July 25, 2016, http://www.
chemheritage.org/discover/onlineresources/chemistry-in-history/themes/
pharmaceuticals/preserving-health-withbiotechnology/berg-boyer-cohen.aspx.
7 Rasmussen, Nicolas, “DNA Technology:
‘Moratorium’ on Use and Asilomar
Conference,” eLS (2015), accessed July
26, 2016, doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.
a0005613.pub2.
8 “The Recombinant DNA Debate.”
Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA 1975 // WMHSMUN 30
experimenting at this level; merely, they
have postponed those experiments that
have provoked the most discomfort
among the scientific community. They
have successfully transformed E. coli
with plasmids that confer antibiotic
resistance. In this context, plasmids are
small loops of DNA (generally less than
1% of the size of a bacterial chromosome)
that cannot replicate outside of their host
organism. When successfully introduced
into a host, they can both replicate and
cause transcription and translation of
the genes they encode. Berg’s lab has
engineered plasmids that contain both
the necessary genetic information to
replicate in the host of choice and genes
conferring resistance to a gauntlet of
antibiotics, including tetracycline and
kanamycin9.
Indeed, Berg’s lab is at the forefront of
recombinant DNA technology, and thus
it is somewhat fitting that he has called
for this conference. His lab has not
restrained itself until it faced this public
disapproval, successfully inserting genes
into E. coli from organisms as different
from bacteria as eukaryotes10. Notably,
they have spliced in genes from the
African clawed frog – a vertebrate used
as a model organism for human-like early
development.
9 “Herbert W. Boyer and Stanley N.
Cohen.”
10 Ibid.
1. What are the
implications of
using common
Questions to organisms,
Consider:
especially ones
that are part
of the human
flora, as hosts for recombinant DNA
experiments?
2. What safeguards can be put in place
to prevent recombineered organisms
from escaping a laboratory procedure?
Should all organisms with any foreign
DNA be treated with an equal level of
caution, or are some more dangerous
than others?
3. What are the long-term implications
of engineering organisms with
resistance genes? Should these
implications lead to increased levels of
precaution when conferring resistance
upon pathogenic organisms, or will
containing these recombineered
organisms limit that risk sufficiently?
4. The public perception of
recombineered organisms running
amok is perhaps the most dangerous
obstacle to progress in this field.
What safeguards can be designed to
lessen public fear, and how can they
be maintained without increasing the
burden on researchers?
Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA 1975 // WMHSMUN 30
I
n just twenty years
since elucidation
Topic II:
of the structure of
DNA, biotechnology
Bioethics
has developed at
an unprecedented
rate. Even with the
crudeness of DNA editing offered by
current techniques, there are already
accusations that scientists are ‘playing
God.’11 Indeed, splicing DNA is the first
step to being able to narrow down
which segments are truly essential to
life, and which are less necessary12.
Furthermore, as scientists have already
shown, all organisms are susceptible
to this kind of editing. Imagine one
future where correctional editing can
prevent diseases like sickle-cell anemia,
which is caused by a single amino-acid
substitution as discovered in 1958.13
Imagine another future, perhaps, where
vertebrate embryos whose genes were
wrongly spliced are born misshapen and
11 Austin, Charles, “Ethics of Gene
Splicing Trouble Theologians,” New York
Times, July 5, 1981, accessed July 29, 2016,
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/05/
us/ethics-of-gene-splicing-troublingtheologians.html.
12 Lewis, Ricki, “Craig Venter’s Synthetic
Genome 3.0 Evokes Classic Experiments,”
DNA Science Blog, March 24, 2016,
accessed July 12, 2016, http://blogs.plos.
org/dnascience/2016/03/24/craigventers-synthetic-genome-3-0-evokesclassic-experiments.
13 Ibid.
malformed in the laboratory. Is this but
the cost of science?14
Closer to the present, Lysenko’s theories
regarding inheritance and cytology
have destroyed the Soviet Union’s
advancement in biology.15Nevertheless,
the kinds of heritable adjustments to
genetic expression that he desired may
become possible. Keeping in mind that
traditional farming practices are merely
accelerated evolution and that, in some
sense, recombination (using naturally
occurring enzymes, as it does) might
be viewed as the next step: consider
ideas as far-flung as genetically edited
agricultural produce or weight-loss pills
that promise to change the way one’s gut
bacteria digest food. There are more than
simply these possibilities; this committee
may consider some or none of the
situations proposed here.
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), passed
by the U.S. Congress in 1966, may offer
some precedent in this situation.16
14 Zoloth, Laurie, “Bioethics and Genetic
Research: Selected History and Essential
Premises,” Office of Science Policy,
NIH, accessed August 3, 2016, http://
osp.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/13_
Bioethics_Zoloth.pdf.
15 Joravsky, David, The Lysenko Affair,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010,
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=nWVBgEyiiMYC&printsec=&hl=en.
16 “Laws and Regulations,” New England
Anti-Vivisection Society, accessed August
4, 2016, http://www.neavs.org/research/
laws.
Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA 1975 // WMHSMUN 30
Regulating the use of a variety of
mammals, which are considered to sense
pain and to have some sentience, the
AWA established the necessity for an
institution-level committee which would
serve as a control on profligate waste of
animal life and suffering. This committee
is composed of community members
as well as professional researchers and
veterinarians, who bring their various
expertise to determine whether an
experiment is ethically designed. This
group seeks to avoid the public outcry
which necessitated the passage of the
AWA by preempting doubts about ethical
experimentation with scientific standards
and safeguards.
1. What are
ethical concerns
associated with
Questions to working with
Consider:
vertebrate DNA, or
even human DNA?
How might they be
addressed by the scientific community
before government regulation becomes
necessary?
2. What ethical decisions must be made
regarding embryonic experimentation
and methods of DNA acquisition? How
can this group create institutional rules
and protocols that will have room for
future developments in this field? Who
should oversee the implementation of
these rules?
3. How might medical laboratory
experimentation raise different concerns
from experimentation by industry
scientists, or commercial use of
recombination to increase agricultural
yields, and what standards could be put
into place for each of these situations?
Should they be regulated separately, or
altogether?
C
ontinuing the
parallels to
animal research,
Topic III:
this body may
Sourcing
consider concerns
about the forms
from which
recombinant DNA are drawn. Although
more stringent restrictions on animal
research pertain to more complex
organisms (that is, organisms most similar
to humans), the same guidelines may or
may not be appropriate for recombinant
DNA research.
On the one hand, the length of DNA
from viruses and bacteria is the shortest
known, and thus could potentially
be the most easily characterizable.
Investigating DNA in this sandbox model
could potentially lead to groundbreaking
understandings which will revolutionize
scientific study. Thus, leaving the fewest
restrictions on this level of research
would encourage research at this basic
level and create a solid foundation of
knowledge on which to build for more
Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA 1975 // WMHSMUN 30
complex experimentation.
On the other hand, studying DNA from
single-celled organisms in single-celled
organisms poses perhaps the greatest
risk, as these organisms – if viable –
will be as self-sufficient as their wild
counterparts. While DNA taken from
a complex, multicellular organism will
not be able to recreate that organism
when expressed by a bacterium, DNA
taken from another bacterium will
undoubtedly have more of an impact on
the host, and the host cell will already
be a full organism. Of course, there are
many more arguments for and against
placing limits on rDNA research at any
level – single or multicellular – than
those discussed here. Some of those
arguments concern the dangers of toying
with already virulent organisms whose
pathogenicity is harmful to humans,
and the potential for misdevelopment
of multicellular organisms due to errors
introduced into their DNA.17
Ethical concerns effectively prohibit
research from occurring directly on
humans, and even after extensive animal
testing, clinical trials are still undertaken
with great trepidation. As-yet unexplored
17 Berg, Paul, Baltimore, David, Brenner,
Sydney, Roblin, Richard O., and Singer,
Maxine F., “Summary Statement of the
Asilomar Conference on Recombinant
DNA Molecules,” PNAS 72 (1981), doi:
10.1073/pnas.72.6.1981.
is the question of whether DNA taken
from humans should be approached
with similar caution, or indeed whether
DNA should be taken from humans at
any stage of development. It is within the
purview of this body to discuss in a civil
manner the potential for future studies
involving human genes, and to establish
limits for the ways in which DNA may be
acquired for these studies. Although the
technology may not yet exist for DNA to
be acquired in a manner consistent with
those guidelines, the body will have the
flexibility in future to revisit these rules
as technology advances, and it is better
to be prepared for the future than to be
caught unawares.18
1. Guidelines
for the use of
vertebrates
Questions to emphasize
Consider:
reduction,
refinement, and
replacement.19
Should those guidelines be extended
to the DNA of vertebrate organisms as
well? Should they apply to recombinant
DNA, and if so, to the standards of the
18 Berg, Paul, “Meetings that Changed
the World: Asilomar 1975: DNA
Modification Secured,” Nature 455 (2008):
290 – 291, doi: 10.1038/455290a.
19 “Alternatives to Animal Testing,”
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, accessed August 7, 2016,
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/
science/sya-iccvam.
Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA 1975 // WMHSMUN 30
host organism, or to that from which the
spliced-in DNA originates?
2. What are some concerns surrounding
the ability of organisms to persist
outside the laboratory, and how might
sourcing DNA from different organisms
play into earlier standards created by
the containment guidelines?
3. How can guidelines be standardized
across laboratories and countries,
allowing fair collaboration and
repeatability? How can foundational
work be elaborated upon and how
far should guidelines allow flexibility
to account for future advances in
technology and scientific knowledge?
General
References:
1. https://
en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Asilomar_
Conference_on_
Recombinant_DNA