Contemporary Science Policy Issues • iBiology

00:00:14.19 LG: I'm Larry Goldstein, I'm a professor of cellular and molecular medicine
00:00:19.28 at UC San Diego, and I'm pleased to be here interviewing Paul Berg
00:00:24.08 in a second segment, about Paul's experiences both originally
00:00:29.21 in the regulation of recombinant DNA as you heard
00:00:32.29 in the previous segment, and now I want to move him along
00:00:35.19 to discussions of places where the original model of recombinant DNA
00:00:41.20 has not worked as well, where the issues have perhaps
00:00:43.26 been a little more socially complicated. Paul, you'll remember,
00:00:46.13 is a Nobel Laureate, a winner of the Public Policy Award
00:00:50.27 of the American Society for Cell Biology, and in some ways a role model
00:00:54.28 that many of us have sought to emulate in our dealings with
00:00:57.27 the body politic and the press and everything else, so Paul
00:01:00.15 thank you for joining us again. PB: Thank you. LG: So thinking about
00:01:05.08 Asilomar and how Asilomar and recombinant DNA regulation
00:01:10.01 really set the tone for scientists calling for regulation
00:01:13.25 and driving the kind of regulation that has in fact developed
00:01:17.19 and been followed. I know that genetically modified foods and the stem cell
00:01:22.13 debates have not lent themselves very well to that kind of model.
00:01:26.11 Are there principles you think or reasons why that has not worked so well
00:01:30.27 in this context? PB: Yes, so let me go back a little bit. The scientists
00:01:35.11 did not call for regulation. The Asilomar meeting was actually the
00:01:39.23 attempt to bring out the various views and various constituencies
00:01:44.21 and to try to assess, was there or was there not a risk.
00:01:48.10 The assessment was, it was some risk, but we could mitigate those risks
00:01:53.23 by having these guidelines. So the guidelines were a recommendation
00:01:57.08 of how to proceed. Now if you look at some of the other issues
00:02:03.09 that have confronted science and public policy, the one that
00:02:07.29 came shortly thereafter was genetically modified foods.
00:02:12.11 And the question was, there's lots of data that says it's safe
00:02:15.26 and there's lots of public policy that doesn't want to have it in their backyard.
00:02:20.00 Would an Asilomar-type meeting help to bring together these
00:02:25.20 two opposing views and try to draw some kind of consensus
00:02:29.26 and the answer that we found was, they were almost irreconcilable views
00:02:35.21 and the views on the opposition were mostly cultural.
00:02:39.12 They weren't questioning the science in large part. And in the main
00:02:46.19 in Europe particularly, it was the desire to try and maintain the traditional
00:02:51.04 type of agriculture. So we just never could get the two sides to mesh
00:02:56.01 LG: Even on safety issues? Cause I know the opponents often claim
00:03:00.00 that there are safety problems. PB: Right, so the companies set up trials,
00:03:03.20 they did all kinds of, the FDA approved many of these things after examining
00:03:08.08 the data. There was always the problem of the dissemination of weeds
00:03:13.07 that would take hold. All these kinds of things arose and slowly but surely,
00:03:19.26 the scientific data dispelled almost all of them, but never could challenge
00:03:26.01 people at the core values of their culture. What they felt about food,
00:03:30.24 what food meant to them. And in many ways one of the problems
00:03:34.15 I think early on, and the agriculture business recognized it is, all the genetic
00:03:40.01 modifications they were making were to facilitate better yields for the farmers,
00:03:43.25 make work easier for the farmers. The public would say, well what do
00:03:47.28 I get out of it? I'm taking the risk of eating something that you tell me is safe,
00:03:53.16 but may turn out not to be safe in the long run. So why should I take
00:03:57.24 that risk when all it's doing is making the farmers' job easier and richer.
00:04:04.11 LG: So was this a case, maybe, of the scientific community not finding
00:04:07.20 the right way to explain or the right message or the right way to reach people?
00:04:11.19 PB: Well, I'm not sure what kind of message you could do, cause it's,
00:04:15.14 we'll get to in a moment...LG: Well you can tell people that it would make
00:04:18.00 food less expensive for them or more nutritious. PB: All of those arguments
00:04:20.29 were made. All of those... LG: And they didn't work? PB: No. And my own view
00:04:25.01 thought, ultimately a shoppers going to walk into a market and see two bins
00:04:30.24 and there's the bin that was genetically modified and there's the wild type
00:04:35.10 and the price is going to be half for the genetically modified
00:04:39.14 and they are going to have to make a choice, and the pocketbook
00:04:44.01 again will be... LG: Free markets sometimes correct these things.
00:04:48.12 PB: Now, the issue of culture is the same thing with the stem cell issue.
00:04:53.09 So I don't how many meetings when the embryonic stem cell issue arose,
00:04:58.26 there was the violent opposition coming from essentially
00:05:04.20 the cultural right wing, but religious organizations, and then people
00:05:10.04 who themselves felt deeply about the sanctity of life and the anti-abortion
00:05:16.02 constituency. So everything was opposed to the embryonic stem cell work.
00:05:23.19 I don't know how many meetings I attended, where these
00:05:28.10 two constituencies met, and it was like talking by each other.
00:05:33.23 Talking right past each other, you could not persuade those who felt
00:05:38.29 deeply and conscientiously about sanctity of life, that you couldn't
00:05:45.00 convince them that this little blastocyst was not a definition of life.
00:05:50.03 And that is not so well understood when people want to say,
00:05:53.21 well let's have a conference and bring these two opposing views together.
00:05:57.04 They have to be views that are willing to listen to each other, and
00:06:01.22 that there is some give-and-take as there was in the recombinant DNA
00:06:06.25 and that some of these other things there is no middle ground.
00:06:09.17 LG: Well of course, with embryonic stem cells, Congress got into the act very quickly
00:06:13.19 in this case didn't they? PB: Yes. LG: So you testified I know in a
00:06:16.27 number of hearings in the Senate. Were you in one of the first ones?
00:06:20.15 PB: I was, I don't know, in any number of them, yes, and what you could see,
00:06:28.02 what was being played out was this cultural, religious perspective
00:06:33.29 against the scientific opportunities. And it was easy for that other side to
00:06:41.11 pooh-pooh the scientific opportunities, and in fact say, well you haven't
00:06:45.05 done it yet. And you'd argue, well we can't do it yet, because you won't
00:06:49.09 allow us to do it. I think if I look back on that whole period of
00:06:56.18 the scientific community coming together, at least California, and being
00:07:01.14 able to get embryonic stem cell work approved, making the case to the public
00:07:06.27 and getting an almost overwhelming approval, is another example
00:07:11.24 where the scientific community used its reputation for, and I'm going to go
00:07:19.29 back and say Asilomar set a tone. Learn to trust the scientists.
00:07:25.11 My engagement in that public policy debate wasn't as rewarding as
00:07:31.13 the recombinant DNA was, but I'll tell you, I'm just going to admit to something
00:07:37.21 which I have admitted to a number of people, during that entire debate
00:07:42.10 I along with most of us said adult stem cells were never going to be useful.
00:07:49.29 We have to rely on embryonic stem cells. And I think today there's
00:07:56.05 more work going on, and more interesting things going on with adult stem cells.
00:08:00.02 LG: Well there's terrific work going on with both, right? PB: With both.
00:08:02.11 But I think what I found is dismissing the utility of adult stem cells,
00:08:08.22 but in fact more and more of them are being cultured and propagated
00:08:14.01 and maintained and in terms of the debate about embryo versus
00:08:20.08 adult, I think the most immediate benefits are going to come out of either
00:08:26.19 adult somatic stem cells from various tissues, or from the iPS cells
00:08:34.20 the cells that were adult cells that have been converted
00:08:38.24 to embryonic-like cells. And I think the debate was good to have,
00:08:46.11 and in the end I think we have progress, which is important.
00:08:52.06 LG: There's good science happening, which is what really matters on all fronts.
00:08:56.17 PB: Now just to take the lesson from Asilomar one step further,
00:09:00.06 are there going to be other problems that are going to arise?
00:09:04.02 LG: Well that is what I was going to ask you. I mean looking forward
00:09:06.24 doesn't all new technology bring new ethical challenges? PB: More and more
00:09:11.23 the big one that is going on now is synthetic biology. Now you can make
00:09:17.11 organisms, make anything, and I have defended that and actually
00:09:22.03 have been involved with things, and I am a strong advocate, but there are
00:09:26.17 people saying, "Yes, but...", and the "Yes, but..." is what are the nasty
00:09:31.26 things you can do with the same technology, and I think we are going
00:09:35.02 to have to work through that, so the government again has set up a
00:09:38.11 very strong panel to oversee the developments of synthetic biology
00:09:44.19 and several interesting things have developed. So for example,
00:09:48.09 these commercial places that will make DNA for you, now have a rigorous
00:09:52.26 protocol that they have to examine. A request to make a particular
00:09:57.23 DNA sequence. They have to translate it and see what it in fact will,
00:10:02.26 what kind of protein it will make. Who's going to use it. There's a lot of things
00:10:09.00 before they will actually make it and approve it. So the idea that some
00:10:13.13 weirdo is going to send in a request for some nasty toxins...
00:10:16.25 LG: small pox or whatever is always the nightmare scenario...
00:10:20.19 PB: is unlikely to be done.
00:10:21.24 But nevertheless, synthetic biology is confronting an issue of creating
00:10:28.22 microbes that will be making biofuels, and I'm absolutely
00:10:34.26 astonished and amazed about what people are actually doing.
00:10:39.15 I mean Craig Venter is making whole chromosomes, Jay Keasling is
00:10:44.17 turning out organisms that are using biomass, the organism programmed
00:10:52.08 to actually digest cellulases and xyluloses and convert them into sugar
00:10:58.11 internally and make long chain fatty acids that are being used to drive trucks.
00:11:04.25 LG: So you sound very optimistic that we can both solve the technical
00:11:08.17 as well as the safety concerns there. PB: I think the genome project has
00:11:14.19 provided an extraordinary library of information of genes
00:11:20.23 LG: From not just humans, but from all organisms. PB: All organisms.
00:11:24.15 So if you go to an organism, the sweet wormwood plant, and take out three genes
00:11:31.07 and put them in E. coli so they make now artemisinin.
00:11:34.07 LG: What the heck is artemisinin PB: Artemisinin is the major drug
00:11:38.14 now being used for treatment of drug resistant malaria.
00:11:41.25 And so it's a very complicated
00:11:45.00 molecule, and so it's costly to synthesize with the usual procedures.
00:11:49.19 Isolating it from the plant is very complicated. So Jay pulled out the three genes
00:11:57.11 that carry out the last three steps of the synthesis of artemisinin,
00:12:01.10 engineered the steroid pathway of E. coli. So you make a precursor
00:12:06.14 and with the three enzymes from the wormwood plant they pour out
00:12:11.26 artemisinin and now big plant manufacturing it on a commercial scale.
00:12:16.21 LG: So you make an anti-malaria drug in an E. coli fermenter. Incredible.
00:12:21.29 PB: And that is now making kerosenes, making airplane fuels.
00:12:28.08 LG: So in retrospect you took an enormous leap when you walked out of the lab
00:12:35.09 and decided to spend some time working with the public.
00:12:40.19 Is that a good model going forward? Do we need more of that? Do we need
00:12:44.13 less of it? What are your thoughts about that? PB: Well there are people
00:12:48.08 who can do this. Who are articulate and persuasive and could play a role,
00:12:56.29 and there are those that can't and won't. And I think we have to encourage
00:13:01.17 people because, after all, this is our world, the scientific community is
00:13:07.07 and what we do is our world. And if we don't defend it, in one way, explain it
00:13:13.19 then we are not doing half the job. We publish papers
00:13:18.01 as a way of communicating what we've done, LG: To each other.
00:13:22.10 PB: But the general public doesn't read these papers and they are in the dark.
00:13:26.17 And you are using mumbo-jumbo to describe what you do.
00:13:30.25 And so there are people who are very skilled and enjoy actually explaining
00:13:38.10 what they do in more general terms to the general public
00:13:42.05 and that's a very valuable thing for those people to do it. I think we have to
00:13:48.27 clear the path so it's not sacrificing ones career. LG: Yeah, I mean
00:13:54.14 if one were to make the argument to some people and say, well
00:13:57.07 you can only do it after you've gotten the Nobel Prize, which means it's
00:14:00.06 a very small population. PB: Well, okay, it doesn't have to be a Nobel Prize,
00:14:03.18 it could be when your career has gelled to the point where you're now
00:14:08.21 recognized so that in fact if you are going to make statements
00:14:12.13 people will say it is coming from authoritative source. LG: Build some respect.
00:14:16.24 PB: Younger people sometimes say, nuh-uh I don't want to get involved in that
00:14:22.07 I'm in science to do experiments, but when you grow up, okay,
00:14:27.08 and it is when you grow up and you feel assured of a modicum of success
00:14:33.03 that you can go out and do this, and you have to do it conscientiously
00:14:38.24 and seriously and honestly. LG: And you have to bring rigorous science.
00:14:41.24 PB: And you have to bring rigorous science. LG: Thank you. PB: Good.

This Talk

Speakers: Larry Goldstein, Paul Berg

Audience:

Educators of H. School / Intro Undergrad
Student
Educators of Adv. Undergrad / Grad
Researcher
Educators

Recorded: March 2011

Talk Overview

Dr. Berg continues his discussion on science policy issues with Larry Goldstein. He presents his thoughts on why it has been so difficult to develop policies on issues such as genetically modified foods and embryonic stem cell research and he predicts that synthetic biology may be the next area of debate.

Speaker Bio

Larry Goldstein

Larry Goldstein is Professor of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of California, San Diego and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator. Goldstein is also a recipient of the ASCB Public Service Award. The Goldstein lab studies how molecular motors interact with axonal vesicles and how this relates to neurodegenerative disease such as Alzheimer’s… Continue Reading

Paul Berg

Paul Berg joined the nascent Biochemisty department at Stanford University in 1959 and has remained there since. Berg’s early work led to the discovery of the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases and tRNAs and their role in protein synthesis. Berg was a pioneer in developing recombinant DNA techniques, work for which he shared the 1980 Nobel Prize… Continue Reading