Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
personal as to defy comparison with any other technology. A quarter of
a century ago, the metaphor of “playing God” seemed appropriate—as
did notions of the genome as the “blueprint,” “template,” or “periodic
table” that determines the nature of a person, plant, or animal. Observers
argued that once the genetic code had been “cracked,” nothing could
deter human will and contrivance. Even today—if the April 10, 2000
Newsweek
cover story, “Decoding the Human Body,” is any indication—
the public regards DNA technology in itself as particularly alarming,
risky, or perverse—a Faustian bargain, a Promethean assault on the
natural world.
In February 2000, a group of scientists, including several of the orig-
inal conferees, met with other experts again at Asilomar to take stock of
their concerns about genetic engineering. Their talk was not of awesome
power and heroic self-restraint but of regulatory headaches and business
opportunities. Within the scientific and professional community, the
intervening years, it seemed, had turned genomic research and technol-
ogy into business as usual (if big business) and normal science. Popular
magazines continue to tout the exceptional powers of biotechnology, but
twenty-five years after the first Asilomar conference, scientists and those
who deal professionally with medical ethics and policy take a far more
restrained view and speak not of Promethean possibilities but of partic-
ular strategies to deal with specific diseases.
The matter-of-factness, even complacency, on display at the second
Asilomar meeting can be traced to two sources. First, and most obvi-
ously, the “monumental power” of genetic technology had created exag-
gerated expectations that it could not possibly fulfill at least in the near
term. With stolen fire in hand, Prometheus hadn't burned down the
world. Geneticists have been able to isolate a large number of mutations
associated with various diseases—many of which were already regarded
as hereditary. Pharmaceutical companies have taken genes from one
organism and placed them into other organisms to produce great
quantities of important proteins, such as erythropoietin. Doctors have
engaged in a few expensive and inconclusive attempts at gene therapy.
To understand the significance of the “genetic revolution” in medicine is
to explore the intricacies of particular maladies and the difficulties of
curing them. (It is useful to note, however, that the reverse situation is
true in agriculture, where in a short time genetic engineering has indeed
