Drawing the Line in Genetic Engineering: Self-Regulation and Public Participation

208 ON 6 NOVEMBER 1974, DAVID BALTIMORE presented an informal talk to an interdisciplinary faculty group at MIT. He entitled it “Where Does Molecular Biology Become More of a Hazard Than a Promise?” and described the new recombinant DNA techniques and the possibility that they could give rise to “the potential for public health problems.” Baltimore explained that the Asilomar conference scheduled for February 1975 was an attempt to show that scientists could regulate themselves and was a way “of avoiding governmental responses” which would be too rigid, too hard to reverse, and too hard to work within. He concluded: “We’re stuck between self-determination of limits and imposition of orthodoxy.We’re stuck between self-interest of scientists and the public interest” (Baltimore 1974). As I listened I was impressed with this effort for responsibility and self-regulation, but I wondered how it was possible to exclude the public in a matter that should be of public concern. That was the beginning of my interest in the subject. As a historian of contemporary science focusing on social responsibility issues, I was drawn to it. In 1975 I started a project to document the development of the “recombinant DNA controversy” while events were happening, while recollections of participants