Page 1 (2/2)

Second, htless or frivolous Efforts to engineer paler trout for better visibility in the strea, and injectable scent cells so you&039;ll always smell of your favorite perfume may seem like a joke, but they are not Indeed, the fact that biotechnology can be applied to the industries traditionally subject to the vagaries of fashion, such as coshtens concern about the whiy

Third, the work is uncontrolled No one supervises it No federal laws regulate it There is no coherent government policy, in America or anywhere else in the world And because the products of biotechnology range froent policy is difficult

Butscientists theenetics research is also engaged in the coy There are no detached observers Everybody has a stake

The co ethical event in the history of science, and it has happened with astonishing speed For four hundred years since Galileo, science has always proceeded as a free and open inquiry into the workings of nature Scientists have always ignored national boundaries, holding themselves above the transitory concerns of politics and even wars Scientists have always rebelled against secrecy in research, and have even frowned on the idea of patenting their discoveries, seeing the to the benefit of all enerations, the discoveries of scientists did indeed have a peculiarly selfless quality

When, in 1953, two young researchers in England, James Watson and Francis Crick, deciphered the structure of DNA, their as bailed as a triumph of the human spirit, of the centuries-old quest to understand the universe in a scientific way It was confidently expected that their discovery would be selflessly extended to the greater benefit of mankind

Yet that did not happen Thirty years later, nearly all of Watson and Crick&039;s scientific colleagues were engaged in another sort of enterprise entirely Research in enetics had beco, and its origins can be traced not to 1953 but to April 1976

That was the date of a now fa, in which Robert Swanson, a venture capitalist, approached Herbert Boyer, a biochereed to found a co techniques Their new coest andstart-ups

Suddenly it seemed as if everyone wanted to become rich New companies were announced alenetic research By 1986, at least 362 scientists, including 64 in the National Academy, sat on the advisory boards of biotech firms The number of those who held equity positions or consultancies was several tireater

It is necessary to enificant this shift in attitude actually was In the past, pure scientists took a snobbish view of business They saw the pursuit of , suited only to shopkeepers And to do research for industry, even at the prestigious Bell or IBM labs, was only for those who couldn&039;t get a university appointment Thus the attitude of pure scientists was fundamentally critical toward the work of applied scientists, and to industry in general Their long-standing antagonis industry ties, and whenever debate arose about technological matters, disinterested scientists were available to discuss the issues at the highest levels

But that is no longer true There are very few ists and very few research institutions without coone Genetic research continues, at a more furious pace than ever But it is done in secret, and in haste, and for profit

In this commercial climate, it is probably inevitable that a coies, Inc, of Palo Alto, would arise It is equally unsurprising that the genetic crisis it created should go unreported After all, InGen&039;s research was conducted in secret; the actual incident occurred in the ion of Central America; and fewer than twenty people were there to witness it Of those, only a handful survived

Even at the end, when International Genetic Technologies filed for Chapter 11 protection in San Francisco Superior Court on October 5, 1989, the proceedings drew little press attention It appeared so ordinary: InGen was the third s company to fail that year, and the seventh since 1986 Few court documents were made public, since the creditors were Japanese investuri and Densaka, companies which traditionally shun publicity To avoid unnecessary disclosure, Daniel Ross, of Cowan, Swain and Ross, counsel for InGen, also represented the Japanese investors And the rather unusual petition of the vice consul of Costa Rica was heard behind closed doors Thus it is not surprising that, within a month, the problems of InGen were quietly and amicably settled

Parties to that settleuished scientific board of advisers, signed a nondisclosure agreement, and none will speak about what happened-but ures in the "InGen incident" are not signatories, and illing to discuss the reust 1989 on a remote island off the west coast of Costa Rica