Federal officials say they have yet to decide whether to implement recommendations from an October 2003 report that urged increased regulation of biotechnology research, for fear that it could fall into the hands of terrorists.
The findings, published by the National Academy of Sciences, which advises Congress on scientific policy, urged a combination of self-regulation by researchers and journals that publish their findings, as well as increased government oversight.
“”This proposal is a key step in an evolving process to strike the right balance between national security concerns and the openness necessary for America’s research enterprise to thrive,”” stated Gerald Fink, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and chair of the committee that wrote the report, in a press release.
Fink and other top experts from around the nation, including UC San Francisco biochemistry professor Erin O’Shea, specifically pointed to recent research on mousepox that they fear terrorists could use as a blueprint to create a more virulent and vaccine-resistant strain of smallpox.
Some professors urged that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services expand current restrictions on research concerning recombinant DNA to include seven other “”experiments of concern,”” dealing with virulence and alteration of pathogens. They also advocated for the creation of a National Science Advisory Board for Biodefense within the department, made up of scientists and national security experts, to head the new oversight system.
“”I think there are dangers by having research regulated by a commission. The dangers that I see are that it can stifle creativity,”” said Dr. David Bailey, deputy vice chancellor for health sciences and deputy dean of UCSD’s School of Medicine. “”Some of the best contributions in science have been made from individuals who have not been directed in any given area. They were truly creating out-of-the-box ideas.””
Though in agreement that more guidelines are needed, Bailey would prefer self-regulation by scientists rather than government control of research.
“”We do need to be more responsible. If you do not have any segment of society regulating itself, you have regulations imposed on it,”” Bailey said. “”I think that’s what’s happening here. If science is irresponsible, then I think society will jump in and start mandating and regulating control.””
Initially, the new restrictions would apply to research paid for by the National Institutes of Health, which, according to Bailey, provides the majority of funding for UCSD School of Medicine. Under the proposal, regulations would also expand to cover all scientific research, both by public and private entities.
A decision on whether to implement the proposals has not yet been made, according to federal officials.
“”It was a very thorough and very good report. I suspect that we may take a lot of actions that it recommended, but we’re still waiting for guidance [from Health and Human Services],”” said Ernest Takafuji, assistant director of biodefense research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a branch of the National Institutes of Health.
However, many scientific journals have already put into practice the report’s recommendations calling for self-governance in publishing “”sensitive but unclassified”” information in the life sciences.
Regulators don’t yet have a timeline for a final decision on the other proposals, according to Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Mark Wilson, who said the report was “”under review”” but that there had not yet been steps in implementing its recommendations.
