Deadly “Andromeda Strain”-like viruses.Mutant killer bees.Major climatological...

Deadly “Andromeda Strain”-like viruses.

Mutant killer bees.

Major climatological and ecological upheaval.

These worst-case scenarios have all been predicted as possible outcomes of man’s forays into genetic engineering.

“Fantasy,” maintains Gerald Caulder of the San Diego-based Mycogene Corp.

“Even with the best intentions, even if we do the very best we can, there’s going to be some percentage of mistakes,” counters Daniel Simberloff of Florida State University.

Genetic engineering, whereby scientists recombine genes of two different organisms--organisms as widely dissimilar as human beings and bacteria--has been fraught with controversy since first accomplished in the 1970s.

Some consider it ungodly tampering with nature; others say that potential horrors must be weighed against the benefits to mankind:

- Microbes (microscopic organisms) have already been engineered to produce insulin, interferon and a human growth hormone in quantities otherwise not possible.

- Techniques based on the manipulation of DNA have been developed for prenatal diagnosis of sickle-cell anemia and other genetic diseases and, perhaps more important, for the diagnosis of infectious diseases.

- Chemical pesticides and herbicides may soon be obsolete; in an effort to protect corn seeds, for example, scientists at Monsanto Co. of St. Louis have engineered a common bacterium so that it secretes an enzyme harmful to the intestines of caterpillars but harmless to other species.

But--even as schools such as UC Irvine develop genetic engineering departments and a growing number of new corporations apply to test products dependent on recombinant techniques--the controversy over their safety continues unabated.

Last week, a panel discussion on the risks and benefits of genetic engineering took place in the University Center Heritage Room on the UC Irvine campus. On hand were Simberloff and Caulder.

One panelist, however, Morris Levin of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who was to act as moderator, was unable to attend. Levin--according to his replacement on the panel, Richard Lenski, UC Irvine assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology--has been “essentially . . . gagged by his superiors” due to pending litigation by an environmental activist against the EPA.

Although neither Levin nor his immediate superiors could be reached for comment, EPA spokesman Albert Heier said Levin “was not gagged, absolutely. As a matter of official policy, he could talk about this issue.”

Heier did say, however, that a ruling from the District Court in Washington was expected very soon in the suit filed by environmentalist Jeremy Rifkin, who charges that sufficient environmental impact studies were not conducted before approval of a planned experiment near Salinas.

EPA Approved Release

Lenski provided an overview of developments that spawned the lawsuit:

The EPA approved the first proposed deliberate release of recombinant organisms into the environment last November, a spraying of genetically engineered bacteria called “ice minus” on a field near Salinas in an effort to reduce frost damage to plants.

Local officials and citizens became upset, expressing concerns over public safety and what they perceived as secrecy surrounding the test--in which 8 trillion altered bacteria would be released into the environment. Monterey County supervisors unanimously voted a 45-day ban on the test Feb. 11.

Lenski outlined two concerns in the case.

“One is that some subsection of the human population might react adversely to the bacteria in massive doses, even though it is not generally thought to be a pathogen,” he said.

“Second, it’s possible that if these bacteria enter the environment in high enough numbers, they might affect precipitation and other climatological processes. It’s not a likely consequence--it’s just a case where very little is known.”

The day after the panel discussion at UCI, EPA spokesman Heier announced that the agency would investigate whether the firm manufacturing “ice minus” in fact violated containment guidelines when it tested the bacteria outdoors on trees prior to federal approval.

Ten years ago, the National Institutes of Health issued guidelines stipulating that genetic engineering experiments be physically and biologically contained, that research be confined to tightly controlled laboratory settings and conducted only on microorganisms unable to survive outside the labs.

Now, according to panel moderator Lenski, those safeguards are being challenged. Business spokesmen are contending that the field has outgrown the restrictions, that genetically engineered pathogens able to survive and reproduce in nature may be safely released into the great outdoors.

According to panelist Gerald Caulder, the state has already approved field testing in Orange and San Diego counties by Mycogene Corp. of genetically altered microbes for use as pesticides.

(He said he considers the situation here considerably less volatile than the one in Monterey County--his company’s microbes will be dead and incapable of reproduction when released in local test fields later this year.)

Fear and Ignorance

Mycogene’s Caulder said he thinks that, in general, fear and ignorance are standing in the way of progress.

“The basic issue here is the decline in scientific literacy of the general population,” he said. “Far too many people are unable to distinguish between . . . fact and fantasy, evidence and anecdote.

“Early concerns were with the safety of the experiments, that if (an altered microbe) did happen to get out, that it wouldn’t devour Cleveland or something, that it would self-destruct. None of the predictions of widespread pestilence or mayhem occurred.

“Now commercial biotechnology is poised to contribute dramatically to the health and welfare of the human race. Yet the public’s understanding seems to have not kept pace with industry’s development.”

According to Caulder, many safeguards are “built in” to the release of recombinant organisms.

Speaking to their relative frailty, he said: “We can’t keep the damn things alive long enough to do what we want them to do.

‘Demystify Technology

“When you’re genetically engineering an organism, you’re asking it to produce a glob of protein for which it has no use. It’s like asking you to carry around a 40-pound tumor--it’s detrimental.

“It’s also a little like planting a banana tree in Minnesota--it does quite well in the summer, but when winter comes, it goes. (The organism) is not going to compete very well outside its environment.”

Caulder feels his industry’s greatest need is to “demystify biotechnology.”

“A corn plant with one gene changed is just that--it’s a corn plant with one gene changed. It’s not a new plant. To denote it as alien to me is absurd.

“It sounds very exotic, very unnatural, to say we’re going to have a tree produce interferon. But considering the value that interferon may have, I wouldn’t have any problem with that at all.”

Panelist Daniel Simberloff, a professor of biological sciences at Florida State University, has focused his research on species either accidentally or deliberately introduced into new locales and subsequent effects on the existing flora and fauna.

“The people in Monterey County are worried,” Simberloff said. “I think they’re right. No one can give assurance that ‘ice minus’ won’t end up in a neighbor’s yard.

“I can think of lots of examples in which great benefits for humankind were extolled and risks of untoward ecological consequences were minimized, and in retrospect we wish the risks had been given a lot more consideration.

“Pesticide companies have always told us that if properly used, pesticides would have no adverse health or ecological effects. The timber industry and commercial fishermen also give us assurances. We take these with a grain of salt.”

Finds Little Comfort

Simberloff finds little comfort in the knowledge that jurisdiction for releasing engineered animals and higher plants will now fall to the Department of Agriculture.

“The USDA . . . congratulates itself for its great past success in regulating plant and animal introductions,” he said. “This is a joke, even aside from the usual litany of horror stories like the dread kudzu, Gypsy moths and fire ants.” (Kudzu is a ground cover introduced from Japan and used in the Southern states that’s proven virtually impossible to control.)

According to Simberloff, most safety assurances are based on myths about the way nature works.

“One I call the myth of the robust balance of nature,” he said. “The concept is that every species is regulated by a panoply of competitors, predators, parasites and diseases that keeps drastic things such as population explosions from happening. The idea that this balance will keep us from serious harm if some recombinant organism goes awry and starts to eat Cleveland, has no basis in ecological fact.

Myths on Safety

“The other is the myth that ecological niches are full, that a new form cannot insinuate itself into a community, that there aren’t enough resources--that there’s going to be no room for an errant recombinant organism. On the contrary, there are many examples of new species persisting and growing in (already established) communities.”

Simberloff also remains unconvinced by most scientists’ assurances.

“Many arguments as to the likely safety of most releases revolve around what seems to me a remarkable balancing act,” he said. “The organism must be strong enough to do the job--eat the oil spill, or what have you--but not so strong that it can go haywire and get out of control.

“Although it’s clear the technology is improving, I doubt if geneticists can design their organisms that precisely in most cases. All it takes is one recombination. . . . I don’t trust that.”

The primary problem with existing regulations, according to Simberloff, is that ecologists are not given enough time to make thorough studies.

“(Agencies) call up, give particulars and ask that the ecologist call back (with safety predictions) in a couple of weeks,” he explained. “We can’t predict so quickly and on the basis of a few easily measured parameters what’s going to happen upon release.

“I don’t know what we should do. I don’t believe any regulation imposed now is going to stop this industry dead in its tracks. There’s too much money involved, too many scientists and technicians at work. It might slow them down, it might mean the profits are going to come in three years instead of one, seven instead of three. . . . “

Caulder said that he is by no means against regulation.

“No responsible industry person I know is against regulation,” he said. “All we ask for is a clear set of rules going in, so we can evaluate the benefits and risks of a project from a profit standpoint. I don’t see profits and social conscience as mutually exclusive.”