- Email: [email protected]
First enantioselective synthesis of (−)-neplanocin F
329
BOOK REVIEWS Social implications of biotechnology Jacqueline Senker Genetic Engineering: Castrophe or Utopia? Peter Wheale and Ruth McNally 332 pages, £10.95 (Hernel Hempstead, UK, Harvester/Wheatsheaf; New York, St Martin's Press, 1988) Until recently, genetically engineered microorganisms have been confined to the laboratory. Commercial exploitation will involve their use on a far more extensive scale and could bring with it a commensurate increase in risk. Concern that the commercialization of biotechnology will involve much greater risks than laboratory research, together with worries about the implications of devolution of regulation to scientists, have prompted Wheale and McNally to write this book. Major companies and governments around the world are investing heavily in biotechnology research. Although a few products have been brought to market, significant returns on investment are not expected before the next century. There are three principal obstacles to commercialization of biotechnology: first, scientists have made significant advances in understanding and in developing genetic engineering techniques, but each advance tends to highlight gaps in scientific knowledge which delay further progress. Second, firms have no assurances of gaining monopoly profits should they bring new products to market because of uncertainty over patent law and difficulties in enforcing patent protection. Jacqueline Senker is at the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Mantell Building, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RF, East Sussex, UK.
FUTURESApril 1990
The third obstacle is the lack of a regulatory framework to safeguard the public interest and protect the environment. Early fears about the risks involved in recombinant DNA research led to the international scientific community accepting a self-imposed moratorium on certain experiments in 1974. On a national level committees were set up to advise government on appropriate regulatory guidelines: the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee of the National Institute of Health (NIH-RAC) in the USA and the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group (GMAG) in the UK. The US Committee was initially composed of scientists, but public concern and protest ensured that public representatives were eventually included in the regulatory process. In the UK, by contrast, there was little public debate, but GMAG included four members to represent the public interest. Public involvement in regulation was, however, temporary. By the end of the decade scientists had discounted their early fears, regulatory guidelines were relaxed and much of the authority for overseeing research had been devolved to laboratory scientists. The authors are worried about decisions on the regulation of biotechnology being left in the hands of the scientific community. They believe that the assumptions on which such policies are based--that scientists are 'apolitical, fraternal and disinterested' are founded on a dangerous myth. Close association between science, industry and government in advanced industrial countries has sullied scientists' utopian ideals. The scientific community includes political activists who lobby government to gain scarce resources for their disciplines, and undertake research
330 Book reviews
not only in pursuit of knowledge but also for potential academic accolades and commercial rewards. This is particularly true of biotechnology which has seen increasing numbers of universityindustry liaisons threatening the traditional free flow of information throughout the scientific community. In these circumstances, it is necessary for the general public to be well informed so that they can participate on an equal footing with scientists in political decision making about the control and use of genetic engineering, and the book is designed to meet this very real need. The book has three sections. The first is a useful background for the non-scientist. It provides a clear description and explanation of developments in biotechnology, and a comprehensive glossary of relevant scientific terms.
Contrary evidence The second part discusses the various fields in which biotechnology will be commercially utilized, regulatory developments and what Wheale and McNally perceive as contrary evidence to scientists' assertions that intended procedures are inherently safe. This section also includes a chapter on the possible applications of genetic engineering for military purposes. These chapters are daunting in their complexity, especially the acronyms of the multiplicity of regulatory agencies set up to oversee large-scale recombinant DNA work. This arises from the pervasive nature of biotechnology which tends to blur the boundaries between the institutions set up to oversee science, technology, the environment, agriculture, food and drugs. In March 1986, in an attempt to try and standardize regulatory policy, the USA established a Biotechnology Science Coordinating Committee (BSCC) comprised of senior officials of the federal agencies involved in biotechnology research and product regulation. By late 1989 the committee had failed even to produce tentative definitions to guide regulation policy, and one of the agencies involved, NIH-RAC, was trying to broaden its own mandate to include non-recombinant as well as recombinant DNA manipulations.
The failure of experts to reach agreement is not surprising in view of the mass of contradictory evidence available about the potential safety or hazard of a wide range of potential applications of genetic engineering. Risk assessment is phenomenally difficult: there are several types of risk and various groups of people are liable to be affected. Types of risk include the unpredictable effects on the environment of releasing genetically manipulated organisms and plants and the possibility that the use of live viral vaccines, for instance for AIDS, might mutate and revert to a virulent form. Having discussed the evidence, the authors conclude that: the scientific community and genetic engineering firms should exercise restraint in pursuing release experiments until such time as the science of ecology has matured sufficiently to provide the methodology adequate to the task of risk-assessment and call for a worldwide moratorium of at least five years. In view of the extent and unpredictability of the potential risks, the authors' advice to proceed with caution is sensible. But the science of ecology can only mature if small-scale controlled and monitored experiments are carried out on the effects of the various applications of genetic engineering. US AIDS sufferers are already spending fortunes to get hold of any new and untested drug which might provide a cure. A five-year moratorium seems unreasonable in such circumstances.
Economics and eugenics The final section of the whole book on gene therapy and genetic screening is the weakest part. The authors apply economic techniques to try to answer questions of the appropriateness of gene therapy for certain genetic disorders. Non-scientists need to participate in decisions relating to genetic engineering, but heaven forfend that we rely on the techniques of economics when it comes to decisions on eugenics and new human reproductive techniques. These are questions which require advice from religious leaders and moral philosophers. The authors deserve considerable
FUTURES April 1990
Book reviews
credit for identifying a real need for information to be provided to the general public about the social implications of biotechnology, and for making a
331
worthy initial attempt to fill it. Although the book has limitations it does provide a great deal of useful information which is not yet available elsewhere.
Definitional discourse on IT Arthur J. Cordell Technological Change in the Information Economy Peter Monk 256 pp, £27.50 (London, Pinter, 1989) Every once in a while a PhD student is encouraged to publish the dissertation as a book. Sometimes it is seen as a unique contribution and greeted with much fanfare; at other times it passes largely unnoticed. In each case it is usually quite clear that the text is based on a dissertation. Peter Monk's book (as noted in his preface) is clearly based on his dissertation. The style is abstract and tentative and the text pays appropriate homage to the leading academics in whose footsteps the author apparently wishes to follow. While seeking to offend none, the text presents this reviewer, at least, with a mass of material but with few nuggets to take away. Monk has produced a taxonomy of technological change in the context of an information economy. Like most works of this type it appears to go on forever. The reader rushes ahead to determine the end point of the argument--but is quickly disappointed since the author has moved on to a new branch of the argument. But the book is not only classification. Much attention is given to definitions, some interesting, some useful, and each presented several times and in several ways. Arthur J. Cordell is Special Adviser, Information Technology Policy, Department of Communications, DGTA, Room 648, 300 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario KIAOCS, Canada. The views expressed are not necessarilythose of the Department of Communications.
FUTURESApril 1990
Monk has written a book that is, in fact, a textbook for the seminar room. Its audience should be graduate students since it is far too arcane for undergraduates. The text will be especially helpful for those courses oriented towards the theory of innovation in both the industrial and information sectors. The definitions and descriptions it puts forward are sure to provoke and stimulate discussion and controversy. The analytical style, however, is unengaging. All too often the author lists, for example, three points that lead to five points and so on. With a subject as technical as this, it is often difficult to know where Monk is going with his argument, whether the reader is following and, more important, whether the reader wishes to follow. To put it bluntly, on more than one occasion this reviewer got lost in the book's complex reasoning.
Unusual definition Monk defines information technology (IT) in an unusual and distinctive way, as 'that machine-based technology which actively processes information (an abstract resource) as well as storing and/or transmitting it' (page69). The author goes to great trouble to distinguish active processing from passive transmitting. In so doing he distinguishes computing from telephony and broadcasting: where the medium and the message are linked in a dynamic way then we have an IT, but where the telephone carries a message or a broadcaster sends a programme then we do not see IT. What of digital telephony or digital radio? Here the medium and the rues-
BOOK REVIEWS Social implications of biotechnology Jacqueline Senker Genetic Engineering: Castrophe or Utopia? Peter Wheale and Ruth McNally 332 pages, £10.95 (Hernel Hempstead, UK, Harvester/Wheatsheaf; New York, St Martin's Press, 1988) Until recently, genetically engineered microorganisms have been confined to the laboratory. Commercial exploitation will involve their use on a far more extensive scale and could bring with it a commensurate increase in risk. Concern that the commercialization of biotechnology will involve much greater risks than laboratory research, together with worries about the implications of devolution of regulation to scientists, have prompted Wheale and McNally to write this book. Major companies and governments around the world are investing heavily in biotechnology research. Although a few products have been brought to market, significant returns on investment are not expected before the next century. There are three principal obstacles to commercialization of biotechnology: first, scientists have made significant advances in understanding and in developing genetic engineering techniques, but each advance tends to highlight gaps in scientific knowledge which delay further progress. Second, firms have no assurances of gaining monopoly profits should they bring new products to market because of uncertainty over patent law and difficulties in enforcing patent protection. Jacqueline Senker is at the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Mantell Building, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RF, East Sussex, UK.
FUTURESApril 1990
The third obstacle is the lack of a regulatory framework to safeguard the public interest and protect the environment. Early fears about the risks involved in recombinant DNA research led to the international scientific community accepting a self-imposed moratorium on certain experiments in 1974. On a national level committees were set up to advise government on appropriate regulatory guidelines: the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee of the National Institute of Health (NIH-RAC) in the USA and the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group (GMAG) in the UK. The US Committee was initially composed of scientists, but public concern and protest ensured that public representatives were eventually included in the regulatory process. In the UK, by contrast, there was little public debate, but GMAG included four members to represent the public interest. Public involvement in regulation was, however, temporary. By the end of the decade scientists had discounted their early fears, regulatory guidelines were relaxed and much of the authority for overseeing research had been devolved to laboratory scientists. The authors are worried about decisions on the regulation of biotechnology being left in the hands of the scientific community. They believe that the assumptions on which such policies are based--that scientists are 'apolitical, fraternal and disinterested' are founded on a dangerous myth. Close association between science, industry and government in advanced industrial countries has sullied scientists' utopian ideals. The scientific community includes political activists who lobby government to gain scarce resources for their disciplines, and undertake research
330 Book reviews
not only in pursuit of knowledge but also for potential academic accolades and commercial rewards. This is particularly true of biotechnology which has seen increasing numbers of universityindustry liaisons threatening the traditional free flow of information throughout the scientific community. In these circumstances, it is necessary for the general public to be well informed so that they can participate on an equal footing with scientists in political decision making about the control and use of genetic engineering, and the book is designed to meet this very real need. The book has three sections. The first is a useful background for the non-scientist. It provides a clear description and explanation of developments in biotechnology, and a comprehensive glossary of relevant scientific terms.
Contrary evidence The second part discusses the various fields in which biotechnology will be commercially utilized, regulatory developments and what Wheale and McNally perceive as contrary evidence to scientists' assertions that intended procedures are inherently safe. This section also includes a chapter on the possible applications of genetic engineering for military purposes. These chapters are daunting in their complexity, especially the acronyms of the multiplicity of regulatory agencies set up to oversee large-scale recombinant DNA work. This arises from the pervasive nature of biotechnology which tends to blur the boundaries between the institutions set up to oversee science, technology, the environment, agriculture, food and drugs. In March 1986, in an attempt to try and standardize regulatory policy, the USA established a Biotechnology Science Coordinating Committee (BSCC) comprised of senior officials of the federal agencies involved in biotechnology research and product regulation. By late 1989 the committee had failed even to produce tentative definitions to guide regulation policy, and one of the agencies involved, NIH-RAC, was trying to broaden its own mandate to include non-recombinant as well as recombinant DNA manipulations.
The failure of experts to reach agreement is not surprising in view of the mass of contradictory evidence available about the potential safety or hazard of a wide range of potential applications of genetic engineering. Risk assessment is phenomenally difficult: there are several types of risk and various groups of people are liable to be affected. Types of risk include the unpredictable effects on the environment of releasing genetically manipulated organisms and plants and the possibility that the use of live viral vaccines, for instance for AIDS, might mutate and revert to a virulent form. Having discussed the evidence, the authors conclude that: the scientific community and genetic engineering firms should exercise restraint in pursuing release experiments until such time as the science of ecology has matured sufficiently to provide the methodology adequate to the task of risk-assessment and call for a worldwide moratorium of at least five years. In view of the extent and unpredictability of the potential risks, the authors' advice to proceed with caution is sensible. But the science of ecology can only mature if small-scale controlled and monitored experiments are carried out on the effects of the various applications of genetic engineering. US AIDS sufferers are already spending fortunes to get hold of any new and untested drug which might provide a cure. A five-year moratorium seems unreasonable in such circumstances.
Economics and eugenics The final section of the whole book on gene therapy and genetic screening is the weakest part. The authors apply economic techniques to try to answer questions of the appropriateness of gene therapy for certain genetic disorders. Non-scientists need to participate in decisions relating to genetic engineering, but heaven forfend that we rely on the techniques of economics when it comes to decisions on eugenics and new human reproductive techniques. These are questions which require advice from religious leaders and moral philosophers. The authors deserve considerable
FUTURES April 1990
Book reviews
credit for identifying a real need for information to be provided to the general public about the social implications of biotechnology, and for making a
331
worthy initial attempt to fill it. Although the book has limitations it does provide a great deal of useful information which is not yet available elsewhere.
Definitional discourse on IT Arthur J. Cordell Technological Change in the Information Economy Peter Monk 256 pp, £27.50 (London, Pinter, 1989) Every once in a while a PhD student is encouraged to publish the dissertation as a book. Sometimes it is seen as a unique contribution and greeted with much fanfare; at other times it passes largely unnoticed. In each case it is usually quite clear that the text is based on a dissertation. Peter Monk's book (as noted in his preface) is clearly based on his dissertation. The style is abstract and tentative and the text pays appropriate homage to the leading academics in whose footsteps the author apparently wishes to follow. While seeking to offend none, the text presents this reviewer, at least, with a mass of material but with few nuggets to take away. Monk has produced a taxonomy of technological change in the context of an information economy. Like most works of this type it appears to go on forever. The reader rushes ahead to determine the end point of the argument--but is quickly disappointed since the author has moved on to a new branch of the argument. But the book is not only classification. Much attention is given to definitions, some interesting, some useful, and each presented several times and in several ways. Arthur J. Cordell is Special Adviser, Information Technology Policy, Department of Communications, DGTA, Room 648, 300 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario KIAOCS, Canada. The views expressed are not necessarilythose of the Department of Communications.
FUTURESApril 1990
Monk has written a book that is, in fact, a textbook for the seminar room. Its audience should be graduate students since it is far too arcane for undergraduates. The text will be especially helpful for those courses oriented towards the theory of innovation in both the industrial and information sectors. The definitions and descriptions it puts forward are sure to provoke and stimulate discussion and controversy. The analytical style, however, is unengaging. All too often the author lists, for example, three points that lead to five points and so on. With a subject as technical as this, it is often difficult to know where Monk is going with his argument, whether the reader is following and, more important, whether the reader wishes to follow. To put it bluntly, on more than one occasion this reviewer got lost in the book's complex reasoning.
Unusual definition Monk defines information technology (IT) in an unusual and distinctive way, as 'that machine-based technology which actively processes information (an abstract resource) as well as storing and/or transmitting it' (page69). The author goes to great trouble to distinguish active processing from passive transmitting. In so doing he distinguishes computing from telephony and broadcasting: where the medium and the message are linked in a dynamic way then we have an IT, but where the telephone carries a message or a broadcaster sends a programme then we do not see IT. What of digital telephony or digital radio? Here the medium and the rues-