On Friday and Saturday, 25-26 March 1994, Duke University hosted the "Frontiers of Biotechnology" symposium, which featured talks by some of the nation's leading biotechnology researchers. The symposium, which addressed the promises and challenges of the young field of biotechnology, stressed interaction between students, faculty, and research professionals. According to Mary Nijhout, Associate Dean of Trinity College and a faculty advisor to the symposium's student planning committee, "a major goal of this public conference [was] to help undergraduates, both science and non-science majors, gain a greater appreciation for the basics of biotechnology and its ramifications."
The symposium was sponsored by the Program in Science, Technology, and Human Values, and was organized primarily by a student planning committee. Three of the students on that committee have provided a review of the symposium for Vertices.
The symposium commenced on Friday evening with the keynote address by Leroy Hood, Ph.D., William Gates Professor of Biotechnology at the University of Washington. Dr. Hood's address, titled "Molecular Biotechnology: A Revolution in Biology and Medicine in the Twenty-first Century," outlined the future of biotechnology. He addressed various aspects of biotechnology including education and newly developing technologies, both of which will profoundly impact science and medicine throughout the next century.
Dr. Hood began by discussing the fields of molecular biology and biochemistry, the disciplines out of which the revolution in biotechnology was born twenty years ago. He then described developing fields of study which will play a crucial role in advancing the understanding of biological processes at the molecular and organismal level. Examples of these young disciplines cited by Dr. Hood include developmental biology, human genome research, and protein chemistry. Research in these areas will elucidate puzzling biological phenomena such as gene expression and regulation, genetic disease, and the relationships between protein structure and function.
Dr. Hood concluded by addressing the challenges of educating future scientists, stating that researchers will be required to draw upon mathematics, computer science, and biology, and that education should reflect these broadened needs. He stressed the importance of integrating multiple scientific disciplines to tackle the enigmas of biology and medicine which will challenge mankind in the future. Dr. Hood described the pioneer program which he is developing at the University of Washington in the Department of Biotechnology. In his program, graduate students choose a project and attack it with research tools from a variety of scientific disciplines. Dr. Hood also stressed the importance of educating the general public about biotechnology and the ways it in which it can improve people's lives.
Following the keynote address, the Duke University Program in Science, Technology, and Human Values sponsored a banquet which brought together University undergraduates, researchers from throughout the Research Triangle, and the symposium's speakers. The event provided students with an opportunity to meet and talk with professionals and faculty from a variety of backgrounds. The students and adults discussed issues impacting science and medicine, such as the safety of bioengineered products, the role of public and private funding of research, and the ethical issues involved in conducting and applying biotechnology research.
Mark BarrettOn Saturday morning, the Griffith Film Theater gradually filled with people from academia, business, and many still-awakening students. With his talk on "The Human Genome Project: A Frontier in Medicine and Ethics," Francis Collins, Ph.D., Director of the National Center for Human Genome Research, drew a diverse group excited to learn about this massive undertaking from the very person in charge of it.
Dr. Collins did not disappoint his expectant audience, as he progressed from a general discussion of cloning, to the Genome Project itself, to the impact of the Genome Project on medicine, all with the flair of a practiced speaker with a sincere desire to communicate his excitement.
To begin with, Dr. Collins explained the genetic cloning process. Functional cloning involves working with a particular disease, identifying the function that is affected, and trying to locate and map the gene implicated. (Dr. Collins' hypothetical map of the Y chromosome, with its genes for reading the sports page and incessantly flipping TV channels, drew an appreciative laugh). Positional cloning, on the other hand, focuses more on the map position of the gene than its function, so that the progression is from disease to the map to the gene, and then to the function of the gene.
The major goal of the Genome Project is to get the human genome totally mapped. A full map would make it much easier to track down a specific disease-associated gene. Maps of model organisms (c. elegans, mice, yeast, e. coli, and drosophila) will be made as well. The research for the project, sponsored by the NIH and the Department of Energy, is taking place all over the country. The project began October 1990, and the focus for the first five years has been on technological development, in hopes of accelerating the tedious mapping process (only about 5,000 out of 100,000 genes have been mapped so far). Such rapid progress has been made, according to Collins, that a new five-year plan, with more ambitious goals, was drawn up in October 1993.
Dr. Collins then discussed the need for advanced consideration of the potential implications of the Genome Project. He maintained that safeguards should be put in place now, rather than when controversial issues first arise. He also emphasized the need for public involvement in these discussions. Dr. Collins cited breast cancer and its genetic basis as an example of an issue he is concerned about. Breast cancer, which is curable if detected early, has one known genetic contributing factor. This can be identified so that women with a predisposition to the disease can be warned. But how will patients handle this information? They may opt for aggressive preventative treatment (i.e., mastectomy,) or they may choose strong surveillance. Clearly, genetic counselors must not make this kind of decision for the patient. But in order for a patient to make an informed decision, she must be educated about her options. Genetic counselors are very valuable in providing this kind of information; if mass screening for this gene becomes available, more genetic counselors will be needed if the information is to do good and not harm.
To consider the potential implications of and ethical issues surrounding genetic research, part of the Genome Project is devoted to ELSI: the Program on Ethical, Legal, and Social issues. One of the concerns the Program is addressing is privacy: who has access to an individual's genetic information. There are frightening possibilities of both occupational and insurance-related discrimination against people who are found to be genetically predisposed to certain diseases. Another issue being discussed is the lag time between genetic diagnostic capabilities and drug therapy: should someone be informed that he or she has a genetic disease that has no cure?
Clearly, a lot of good will come out of the Genome Project. However, there is a strong need for education, so that people might be able to understand the import of the Genome Project, and so that they might also be informed about the ethical issues that necessitate the safeguards for which Dr. Collins is calling.
Following Francis Collins' talk, Roger Beachy of the Scripps Research Institute spoke about "The Potential Impact of Biotechnology in Agriculture in Developed and Developing Countries." Dr. Beachy's personal exuberance carried over into his talk, as he addressed the subject of transgenic plants. These are very useful innovations because they do not require insecticides or strong herbicides. Dr. Beachy explained that the problem of plant viruses is also being attacked with genetic technology in agriculture.
Another genetic innovation being applied to agriculture is the technique of reinserting the antisense copy of a gene involved in ripening. These genes slow the ripening and rotting of produce. Considering that 80% of bananas are lost to spoilage, slowed ripening could significantly increase productivity. According to Beachy, the future promises plants resistant to environmental stresses. Plants might also be utilized as "factories," producing commodity materials like plastics, as well as organic medical supplies and possibly even natural vaccines.
Developing countries could obviously benefit from this technology, in the form of economic gain and the increased ability to feed native populations. As Dr. Beachy pointed out, however, there are problems to be overcome such as corruption in local governments and excessive bureaucracy which can slow down technology transfer.
There are also unique problems to be overcome in our own country. In order for a genetically engineered agricultural product to be implemented or marketed, it must be approved by the USDA, the EPA, and the FDA. Other concerns that researchers face are environmental safety and farmer and consumer acceptance. Education is once again critically important so that people do not reject genetically enhanced products on the basis of misinformation or lack of information.
Claire SouthernFollowing Dr. Beachy's presentation, a joint address entitled "Is Biotechnology Bad for Science: Can Science and Business Coexist Peacefully and Productively," was delivered by Dr. Cynthia Robbins-Roth of Bioventure Consultants and Dr. Carol Talkington Verser of the consulting firm Sheridan, Ross, and McIntosh. The two discussed the legal and business aspects of biotechnology, especially as they relate to the patent process.
The presentation by Robbins-Roth and Verser was followed by a question and answer period which involved an emotional and somewhat humorous exchange with a member of the Genethics Center (an organization highly critical of biotechnology). This was followed by a lively and educational panel discussion in which all five speakers had the opportunity to interact with each other and with the audience.
All those involved in the symposium agreed that it was a resounding success. The symposium's organizational committee was comprised of only thirteen students and three faculty members, but nearly eighteen months of planning and generous support by the Duke University Program in Science, Technology, and Human Values, the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute resulted in an educational and entertaining weekend.
Jeff BischoffMark Barrett, graduated Trinity College in 1994 with a degree in biology.
Claire Southern, graduated Trinity College in 1994 with a degrees in biology and English.
At the time this article was written, Jeff Bischoff was an Engineering senior majoring in mechanical engineering and physics.
Winter 1995 contents
Vertices web central