Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA

CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans
by Henry T. Greely
Published 22 Jan 2021

As far as Berg’s Nobel Prize goes, no one doubts that he and his lab made major contributions to the field and were driving forces in its advance, but Berg had another role that made him stand out from the rest of the recombinant DNA crowd. He was a leader, arguably the leader, in organizing a temporary moratorium on recombinant DNA research and in organizing and running the famous 1975 Asilomar Conference on recombinant DNA at which the moratorium was discussed. And the Asilomar Conference is an essential part of this story. The Asilomar Conference, or, to give it its full name, the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules, was held on February 24, 25, and 26, 1975, at the Asilomar State Beach and Conference Grounds, an unusual unit of the California State Park system, located on the coast just south of Monterey, California (and one of the loveliest places in the world).7 It had been spawned in June 1973 at a Gordon Conference on the topic of nucleic acids.

…

Greely, “Human Genomics Research: New Challenges for Research Ethics,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 44, no. 2: 221–229 (spring 2001). If you ever get the chance, go. It is gorgeous and peaceful. 15. Paul Berg, David Baltimore, Sydney Brenner, et al., “Summary Statement of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 72, no. 6 (June 1975): 1981–1984. 16. Capron and Shapiro, “Remember Asilomar.” Some have speculated that the journalists were included as a consequence of the Watergate scandal of the previous year and other examples of secret decision-making.

Life's Greatest Secret: The Race to Crack the Genetic Code
by Matthew Cobb
Published 6 Jul 2015

However, a great deal of further work will be needed before this approach can be applied in the real world, and I suspect few scientists – or readers – would want to rely solely on this technique to ensure biosecurity.52 These responsible approaches to the potential impact of a new technique of unprecedented power are a direct descendant of the Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA that so successfully guided science as it was catapulted into the new world of genetic manipulation. In 2008, Paul Berg reflected on the impact of the Asilomar conference: In the 33 years since Asilomar, researchers around the world have carried out countless experiments with recombinant DNA without reported incident.

…

Berg, P. and Singer, M., George Beadle, an Uncommon Farmer: The Emergence of Genetics in the Twentieth Century, Cold Spring Harbor, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2003. Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Boyer, H. W. et al., ‘Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules’, Science, vol. 185, 1974, p. 303. Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Brenner, S. et al., ‘Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA molecules’, Science, vol. 188, 1975, pp. 991–4. Berget, S. M., Moore, C. and Sharp, P. A., ‘Spliced segments at the 5′ terminus of adenovirus 2 late mRNA’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, vol. 74, 1977, pp. 3171–5. Bergstrom, C. T. and Rosvall, M., ‘The transmission sense of information’, Biology and Philosophy, vol. 26, 2011a, pp. 159–76.

…

Exchange of letters between Seymour Benzer and François Jacob, André Lwoff and Jacques Monod, on the occasion of the French trio being awarded the Nobel Prize, in 1965. Benzer was renowned for his sense of humour. 29. Banner put up in Marshall Nirenberg’s laboratory at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, when news came through of his 1969 Nobel Prize. 30. Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA, 1975. Left to right: Maxine Singer, Norton Zinder, Sydney Brenner and Paul Berg. The possibility of using CRISPR to change the human germ line has recently led to calls for a ‘new Asilomar’ to debate the ethical and technical questions involved. NOTES Chapter 1 1.Wood and Orel (2001), p. 258; see also Cobb (2006a), Poczai et al. (2014). 2.López-Beltrán (1994), Müller-Wille and Rheinberger (2007, 2012). 3.Harvey basically shrugged his shoulders and gave up (Cobb, 2006b). 4.Cobb (2006a). 5.For Mendel’s work and its implications, see Bowler (1989), Gayon (1998), Hartl and Orel (1992).

Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto
by Stewart Brand
Published 15 Mar 2009

Monstrous organisms would be created, environmentalists said, that could threaten everything living. There would be insulin-shock epidemics and tumor plagues. The Cambridge and Berkeley city councils—both cities the home of major universities—outlawed recombinant-DNA research. The U.S. Congress began introducing restrictive legislation. That was the atmosphere that led to the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules in California in February 1975. Coming from all over the world, some 146 genetic scientists and related professionals convened for four days to regulate their research. They instituted an array of laboratory containment practices and mandated the use of organisms that could not live outside the lab.

…

Ambio Amboseli National Park American Chestnut (Freinkel) American Chestnut Foundation America Needs Indians America’s Ancient Forests (Bonnicksen) Ames, Bruce Ammann, Klaus Anastas, Paul Anderson, Kat Anderson, Rip Andreae, Meinrat Angel, Roger Archer, David Arctic Arctic Marine Council Argentina Asia genetic engineering and Green Revolution and urbanization and see also specific countries Asian Development Bank Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules Association of Space Explorers asteroids Australia Ausubel, Jesse autocatalytic technologies automobiles background radiation bacteria gene transfer and human body and seawater and Baer, José Baer, Steve Bailey, Ronald Baker, Robert Baldwin, J. Bali Bangladesh Banyacya, Thomas Barcode of Life Baskin, Yvonne bats Bay Conservation and Development Commission bears beavers Bechman, Roland Beebe, Spencer Belarus Benedict XIV, Pope Benford, Gregory Benyus, Janine Berlin, Isaiah beta-carotene Betts, Richard Beyer, Peter Bezdek, Roger H.

Innovation and Its Enemies
by Calestous Juma
Published 20 Mar 2017

Questioning Science Regulatory uncertainties plagued genetic engineering from the beginning, but the scientific community self-regulated those concerns in many instances, understanding the potential dangers genetic engineering posed to the public and to science. Genetic engineering’s transformative power was evident from the time the gene-cloning technique was developed in 1973 by Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen. Two years later, participants at the 1975 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA called for a voluntary moratorium on genetic engineering to allow the National Institutes of Health to develop safety guidelines for what some feared might be risky experiments. By being proactive, the scientific community took responsibility for designing safety guidelines that were themselves guided by the best available scientific knowledge and principles.

…

See Koran, printing of Arab Spring, 91 Archery, 15 Argentina Bt cotton in, 234 genetically edited crops regulation, 254 transgenic organisms, dispute over, 241 Armenians, as printers in Istanbul, 81–82 Al’Arraq, Muhammad ibn, 50 Arthur, W. Brian, 22, 319n5 Artificial ice industry, 197 Artificial intelligence, 13, 199, 281, 284 Artists, relationship with technology, 223 Asbestos, 31 Asia. See also specific countries agricultural systems in, 253 transgenic crops, response to, 251 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, 236 Assemblies, technology as collections of, 22–23 Associations. See names of specific organizations and associations Atatürk, Kemal, 89 Attaix (current-generating device manufacturer), 38–39 Attitudes, as barriers to technological innovation, 33, 36 Audiffren (refrigerator brand), 190 Audio recording system, magnetic, 41–42 Auerbach, Junius T., 186 Austin, Samuel, 176 Australia, genetically edited crops in, 234, 254 Authority, technological innovation and, 30–31, 71 Automation, 14, 281, 283–284.

Future War: Preparing for the New Global Battlefield
by Robert H. Latiff
Published 25 Sep 2017

Since World War II, numerous efforts have been made to deal with issues of technology, weapons research, and ethics. These include the 1946 Nuremberg trials, the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, and efforts by scientists to place restrictions on biomedical, genomic, and nanotechnology research. Scientists attending the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, near Monterey, California, in 1975 recognized the potential dangers of such DNA research and declared a moratorium until safe and ethical procedures could be developed. The guidelines developed were voluntary, but have been assiduously followed. Rules and theory are one thing, practical applications another.

The Singularity Is Nearer: When We Merge with AI
by Ray Kurzweil
Published 25 Jun 2024

No one would have preexisting immunity, and the result would be a pandemic capable of ravaging the human population.[26] The 2019–2023 coronavirus pandemic offers us a pale glimpse of what such a catastrophe could be like. The specter of this possibility was the impetus for the original Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA in 1975, fifteen years before the Human Genome Project was initiated.[27] It drew up a set of standards to prevent accidental problems and to guard against intentional ones. These “Asilomar guidelines” have been continually updated, and some of their principles are now baked into legal regulations governing the biotechnology industry.[28] There have also been efforts to create a rapid response system to counteract a suddenly emerging biological virus, whether released accidentally or intentionally.[29] Before COVID-19, perhaps the most notable effort to improve epidemic reaction times was the US government’s June 2015 establishment of the Global Rapid Response Team at the Centers for Disease Control.

…

See superintelligent AI symbolic computing, 14–19, 40 thought-to-text technology, 70–71 3D printing, 184 Turing test, 8–9, 12–13, 63–69 use of term, 13 vertical agriculture, 181–83 Asia, poverty, 138, 141 Asilomar Conference on Beneficial AI, 280, 282–83 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, 271–72 ASIMO, 101 Askell, Amanda, 48 assembly lines, 203, 204 associative memories, 38 asteroids, 34 Atari, 42 atherosclerosis, 134, 262 Atlas (robot), 101 ATMs, 209 atomic weapons.

Genentech: The Beginnings of Biotech
by Sally Smith Hughes

Recombinant DNA felt to him “like important stuff,” important enough to build a company upon.21 His seven years in venture capital had provided valuable training in raising money and advising new companies, but the experience had also made him feel “like a coach on the sidelines.”22 He wanted a piece of the action; he wanted a company of his own. Culling names from publicity on the 1975 Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA, he drew up a list of scientists prominent in the field. Swanson began to cold-call the scientists, asking if they thought the technology was ready to commercialize. Without exception, all believed recombinant DNA had industrial promise but surmised it would require a decade or two of development before a commercial payoff.23 Persisting despite the rebuffs, Swanson called Boyer, oblivious of the fact that he was contacting an inventor of the technology.

The Gene: An Intimate History
by Siddhartha Mukherjee
Published 16 May 2016

docId=kt5d5nb0zs&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_text. On New Year’s Day 1974: John F. Morrow et al., “Replication and transcription of eukaryotic DNA in Escherichia coli,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 71, no. 5 (1974): 1743–47. Asilomar II—one of the most unusual: Paul Berg et al., “Summary statement of the Asilomar Conference on recombinant DNA molecules,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 72, no. 6 (1975): 1981–84. “You fucked the plasmid group”: Crotty, Ahead of the Curve, 107. He was promptly accused of: Brenner, “The influence of the press.” “Some people got sick of it all”: Crotty, Ahead of the Curve, 108.

…

abortion prenatal tests and, 267–68, 269, 269n, 273 Roe case on, 268–69 shifting attitudes toward, 269–70, 272 acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), 247, 248, 249, 375 ADA deficiency, 423, 424 ADA gene mutations, 422–24 Adam Agassiz’s race theories on, 331 as First Parent, 25 Adams, Mark, 316 ADCY5 gene, in humans, 451 addiction, genetic components of, 300, 301 adenine, 135, 155–56 adenosine metabolism, 423–24 adenovirus, as gene-therapy vector, 430, 431–32, 434, 435, 465 adoption inheritance patterns in genetic diseases involving, 300 intelligence of transracial adoptees in, 348 as option for carrier couples in genetic disorders, 291 studies of twins reared apart after, 374, 381, 383, 487 Advisory Committee on Uranium, 232 Aeschylus, 21 Agassiz, Louis, 331–32, 343 aging research, with transgenic mice, 421 AIDS, 247, 248, 249, 375 Aktion T4 program, Germany, 123–24 Albany, Prince Leopold, Duke of, 99 alcoholism eugenics on, 116 genetic components of, 301, 459 Alexandra, czarina of Russia, 98, 99, 100 Alice, Princess, 99 alleles Fisher’s mathematical research on combinations using, 104 Mendel’s experimentation on, 48–52 Morgan’s fruit-fly research on, 97 polymorphisms similar to, 280 Allfrey, Vincent, 400n Allis, David, 400, 400n alpha interferon, 251 Alu DNA sequence, 324 Alzheimer’s disease, 97, 316, 421 American Breeders’ Association, 77 American Journal of Human Genetics, 281 Amgen, 308 ammonia Miller’s “primordial soup” experiment using, 411 in ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC) deficiency, 429, 430, 431, 432 amniocentesis, 267, 269, 291 Anaxagoras, 356–57 Ancestral Law of Heredity, 68–69, 72 Anderson, William French, 424–27, 428, 430 anemia, 169–70 anthropology, 29–30, 124, 331, 335 antibodies, 224, 323, 423, 435 antipsychotic medicines, 1, 6 apes evolution and, 332 pairs of chromosomes of, 322 applied biology, in Nazi Germany, 119, 120 Are You Fit to Marry? (film), 85 Arendt, Hannah, 124 Arieti, Silvano, 442–43 Aristotle, 22–24, 27, 70, 142 Asilomar conference (Asilomar I, 1973), California, 226–27 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA (Asilomar II, 1975), California influence of, 230, 231–32, 234–35 moratorium proposal of, 230, 477, 502 range of attendees at, 229, 238 recommendations of, 237, 425 restrictions on recombinant DNA from, 243, 243n sessions at, 229–31, 234, 236 Asperger, Hans, 449 association study, 385 atomic bomb, 11, 131, 232, 301, 475 atoms as basic unit, 9–10, 485 coining of word, 71 fundamental units of matter making up, 140 as organizing principle for modern physics, 12 Rutherford’s conceptual model of, 140 attention deficit disorder, 386, 491 Augustinians, Mendel’s life among, 17–18, 49 Auschwitz concentration camp, Germany, 129, 130, 137–38, 502 autism, 276 creativity in, 448, 449 epigenetics used to alter, 406 mismatch between genome and environment in, 265, 482 mutations in, 406, 444, 444n, 454, 503 autoimmune disease, 453 Avery, Oswald background and training of, 133 Griffith’s transformation experiment confirmed by, 133, 136–37 research on DNA as genetic information carrier by, 137, 139, 158, 183, 205, 259, 314, 502 bacteria defense system against invading viruses in, 470–73 drug-resistant, 228–29 gene exchange between, 112 genes turned on or off for metabolic changes in, 175–76, 176n, 307n, 392 genetic information exchanged between, 136 as model system for research, 259 twin studies of genetic variations in response to, 130 Bailey, J.

A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution
by Jennifer A. Doudna and Samuel H. Sternberg
Published 15 Mar 2017

Rogers, Biohazard (New York: Knopf, 1977); P. Berg and M. F. Singer, “The Recombinant DNA Controversy: Twenty Years Later,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92 (1995): 9011–13. Berg and his colleagues decided that most experiments should proceed: P. Berg et al., “Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules,” Science188 (1975): 991–94. gave rise to a consensus that allowed research to proceed with popular support: P. Berg, “Meetings That Changed the World: Asilomar 1975: DNA Modification Secured,” Nature 455 (2008): 290–91. the meeting failed to cast a wide enough net outside the scientific community: “After Asilomar,” Nature 526 (2015): 293–94.

Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control
by Stuart Russell
Published 7 Oct 2019

Another claim that real AI researchers dismiss AI risks: David Kenny, “IBM’s open letter to Congress on artificial intelligence,” June 27, 2017, ibm.com/blogs/policy/kenny-artificial-intelligence-letter. 15. Report from the workshop that proposed voluntary restrictions on genetic engineering: Paul Berg et al., “Summary statement of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 72 (1975): 1981–84. 16. Policy statement arising from the invention of CRISPR-Cas9 for gene editing: Organizing Committee for the International Summit on Human Gene Editing, “On human gene editing: International Summit statement,” December 3, 2015. 17.

Life as We Made It: How 50,000 Years of Human Innovation Refined--And Redefined--Nature
by Beth Shapiro
Published 15 Dec 2021

Plans to modify plants in South Africa to survive prolonged periods of drought are discussed by Lind (2017). Lewis (1992) coined the term “Frankenfoods.” References Afedraru L. 2018 October 30. Ugandan scientists poised to release vitamin-fortified GMO banana. Alliance for Science. Berg P, Baltimore D, Brenner S, Roblin RO, Singer MF. 1975. Summary statement of the Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA molecules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 72: 1981–1984. Butler D. 2012. Rat study sparks GM furore. Nature 489: 474. Carlson DF, Lancto CA, Zang B, Kim ES, Walton M, Oldeschulte D, Seabury C, Sonstegard TS, Fahrenkrug SC. 2016. Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited cell lines.

The Coming Wave: Technology, Power, and the Twenty-First Century's Greatest Dilemma
by Mustafa Suleyman
Published 4 Sep 2023

He’d begun to worry about what his invention might unleash and wanted to set some ground rules and moral foundations for going forward. At the Asilomar conference center, they asked the difficult questions thrown up by this new discipline: Should we start genetically engineering humans? If so, what traits might be permissible? Two years later they returned in even larger numbers for the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA. The stakes in that sea-lapped hotel were high. It was a turning point in the biosciences, establishing durable principles for governing genetic research and technology that set guidelines and moral limits on what experiments could take place. I attended a conference in Puerto Rico in 2015 that aimed to do something similar for AI.

Warnings
by Richard A. Clarke
Published 10 Apr 2017

The Paul Berg Papers: Recombinant DNA Technologies and Researchers’ Responsibilities, 1973–1980, Profiles in Science, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/CD/p-nid/260 (accessed Oct. 11, 2016). 17. Paul Berg, David Baltimore, et al., “Summary Statement of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 72, no. 6 (June 1975): 1981–84. 18. Interview with Paul Berg, June 6, 2016. 19. David Baltimore, Paul Berg, et al., “A Prudent Path Forward for Genomic Engineering and Germline Gene Modification,” Science 348, no. 6230 (Apr. 3, 2015): 36–38. 20.

The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity
by Toby Ord
Published 24 Mar 2020

And they can spend time working with policymakers to ensure national and international regulations are scientifically and technologically sound.54 A good example of successful governance is the Montreal Protocol, which set a timetable to phase out the chemicals that were depleting the ozone layer. It involved rapid and extensive collaboration between scientists, industry leaders and policymakers, leading to what Kofi Annan called “perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date.”55 Another example is the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, in which leading scientists in the field considered the new dangerous possibilities their work had opened up. In response they designed new safety requirements on further work and restricted some lines of development completely.56 An interesting, and neglected, area of technology governance is differential technological development.57 While it may be too difficult to prevent the development of a risky technology, we may be able to reduce existential risk by speeding up the development of protective technologies relative to dangerous ones.

Robot Rules: Regulating Artificial Intelligence
by Jacob Turner
Published 29 Oct 2018

See Paul Berg, “Asilomar and Recombinant DNA”, Official Website of the Nobel Prize, https://​www.​nobelprize.​org/​nobel_​prizes/​chemistry/​laureates/​1980/​berg-article.​html, accessed 1 June 2018. 79Paul Berg, David Baltimore, Sydney Brenner, Richard O. Roblin III, and Maxine F. Singer. “Summary Statement of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 72, No. 6 (June 1975), 1981–1984, 1981. 80Paul Berg, “Asilomar and Recombinant DNA”, Official Website of the Nobel Prize, https://​www.​nobelprize.​org/​nobel_​prizes/​chemistry/​laureates/​1980/​berg-article.​html, accessed 1 June 2018. 81“A principled AI Discussion in Asilomar”, Future of Life Institute, 17 January 2017, https://​futureoflife.​org/​2017/​01/​17/​principled-ai-discussion-asilomar/​, accessed 1 June 2018. 8290% approval from participants was required in order for a principle to be adopted in the final set. 83“Asilomar AI Principles”, Future of Life Institute, https://​futureoflife.​org/​ai-principles/​, accessed 1 June 2018. 84Jeffrey Ding, “Deciphering China’s AI Dream”, Governance of AI Program, Future of Humanity Institute (Oxford: Future of Humanity Institute, March 2018), 30, https://​www.​fhi.​ox.​ac.​uk/​wp-content/​uploads/​Deciphering_​Chinas_​AI-Dream.​pdf, accessed 1 June 2018. 85Anonymous comment made in discussion with the author, January 2018.

Troublemakers: Silicon Valley's Coming of Age
by Leslie Berlin
Published 7 Nov 2017

But he loved science—he read Scientific American cover to cover most months—he needed a job, and he had plenty of time with little to lose. So between cheap meals on the Ping-Pong table that also served as his desk and dining table at home, he cold-called scientists who had attended the Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA almost a year earlier. “I’m a businessman interested in recombinant DNA,” he would begin. Could he ask them a few questions? Some researchers said no. Others offered vague answers to the questions that Swanson considered essential: How long until recombinant DNA could be commercialized?

The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race
by Walter Isaacson
Published 9 Mar 2021

Fredrickson, “Asilomar and Recombinant DNA: The End of the Beginning,” in Biomedical Politics (National Academies Press, 1991); Richard Hindmarsh and Herbert Gottweis, “Recombinant Regulation: The Asilomar Legacy 30 Years On,” Science as Culture, Fall 2005; Daniel Gregorowius, Nikola Biller-Andorno, and Anna Deplazes-Zemp, “The Role of Scientific Self-Regulation for the Control of Genome Editing in the Human Germline,” EMBO Reports, Feb. 20, 2017; Jim Kozubek, Modern Prometheus (Cambridge, 2016), 124. 9. Author’s interviews with James Watson and David Baltimore. 10. Paul Berg et al., “Summary Statement of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules,” PNAS, June 1975. 11. Paul Berg, “Asilomar and Recombinant DNA,” The Scientist, Mar. 18, 2002. 12. Hindmarsh and Gottweis, “Recombinant Regulation,” 301. 13. Claire Randall, Rabbi Bernard Mandelbaum, and Bishop Thomas Kelly, “Message from Three General Secretaries to President Jimmy Carter,” June 20, 1980. 14.

Future Crimes: Everything Is Connected, Everyone Is Vulnerable and What We Can Do About It
by Marc Goodman
Published 24 Feb 2015

We can no longer neglect the public policy, legal, ethical, and social implications of the rapidly emerging technological tools we are developing; we are morally responsible for our inventions. There are good examples in history where we as a society have brought together expertise in anticipation of catastrophic risk before it occurred. One such case was the 1975 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, which was held at Asilomar State Beach in Monterey, California. The event gathered 140 biologists, lawyers, ethicists, and physicians to discuss the potential biohazards of emerging DNA technologies and drew up voluntary safety guidelines. As a result of the event, scientists agreed to stop experiments involving mixing the DNA from different organisms—research at the time that held the potential to have radical, poorly understood, and potentially disastrous consequences.