R. Rabin


wants to be the leader or to influence the leader; each has invested heavily
in ego, jobs, and money; each is convinced that its cause or its concerns are
just, even uniquely so.
 I could dwell on the fascinating and sometimes frustrating sociology of
American biotechnology beyond your post-dinner endurance. I choose,
instead, to consider with you a chronological-an historical-bimodal
panorama and the polar aspects of the scientific community itself.
Remember the result of the 1973 Gordon Conference on Nucleic Acids?
The journey started with the letter to Science, with stopovers at the
National Academy of Science, and the Asilomar Conference in 1975. It
ended with establishment of the RAG-the NIH Recombinant DNA
Advisory Committee. There followed the Cambridge and Princeton Public
Debates, and congressional hearings that seemed to be heading on a fast
track to the legislation of research.
 Within the community of molecular biologists, disarmament referred
far less to strategic arms limitation treaties than to biological containment.
The hyperactivity subsided as gradual relaxation of the NIH Guidelines
dispelled public fears that monsters could escape. Page one stuff of the
early and mid-decade became non-events. The Foundation on Economic
Trends wasn't even a gleam in Jeremy Rifkin's eye. We biologists needn't
have despaired for lack of attention because the herpes and AIDS viruses
were waiting, as were the new microbial equals of the mythological
chimeras-organisms destined, indeed designed, for environmental
release.
 So the first mode of the bimodal panorama expired without legislation,
without mishaps. The NIH RAC did a superlative job and was trusted by
academicians, industrialists, the Congress, and the public. The guidelines,
intended for the safety of the laboratory worker and for containment of
the organisms, were adopted almost universally by federal agencies
supporting academic research. Industry voluntarily abided by them. As
the first mode was ending, the new biotechnology industry was beginning.
Fueled by venture capital, Wall Street equity offerings and entrepreneurs,
biotechnology again became front-page news, at least in the business
section. Those who had debated, even anguished over, the ethical concerns
of catalyzing evolution were still heard, but fewer seemed to listen.
 The second phase of the bimodal history is upon us. If the recombinant
 or genetically engineered organisms were mainly safe, couldn't they be
 designed to carry and express useful traits applicable to agriculture and
 forestry in the environment? The answer from some clearly was "yes." We
 could insert exact nucleotide sequences in the genome which would code
 for the production of proteins. Better yet, we could precisely regulate their