The Department of Biochemistry and the Molecular Approach to Biomedicine at the University of California, San Francisco: Volume 1
More on the Senate Hearing
RutterWhen we got to this [Senate] committee, beside Don Fredrickson and colleagues from the NIH, and Herb and me from UCSF, there were many witnesses and observers. Among them was Margaret Mead, who came wearing a huge long robe and with a long shepherd's staff. [laughter] She sat down right in the central part of the hall, which was wide but not deep.
The hearing was run as a legal hearing in a courtroom.
Hughes
Stevenson was a lawyer, was he not?
Rutter
Adlai Stevenson [III] was a lawyer. We were totally outmatched. Senator Stevenson ran the proceedings. Stevenson gave her this embellished introduction: "This great scientist, one of the greatest scientists who has lived..." After his introduction, he
Hughes
Do you know how she had come to be there?
Rutter
Not to this day. She was, I think, part of a group of scientists that had a deep belief that working with DNA was counterproductive. Her husband...
Hughes
Which one?
Rutter
It was the one who was also a scientist and writer.
Hughes
Bateson.
Rutter
Yes, Bateson. Gregory Bateson was a little more eclectic with respect to science, but he still I think maintained a holistic, an anti-molecular approach.
Anyway, here was a distinguished scientist, albeit from a different field, setting the tone for a group of unknown upstart scientist who were doing "unusual" science, and who were accused of trying to become rich and famous. You can imagine the scenario. Everything was downhill from then on.
Don Fredrickson had previously consulted with me on our testimony. We agreed on the contents and his support. After this verbal attack, he immediately retreated. [He was asked:] "Why haven't you done this and this and this and this?" The questions made him look pretty bad. So the idea of supporting us totally disappeared. We became the scapegoats.
Hughes
So there you were.
Rutter
There we were, left hanging. Herb made a few comments on pBR322, which took a couple licks. But then they focused on insulin cloning. I guess we pretty much looked like schoolboys.
Did you have any chance to regroup?
Rutter
No, not really.
Hughes
What had you been planning to do?
Rutter
You mean, for this hearing?
Hughes
Yes.
Rutter
We planned to discuss exactly what had happened. We had been led to believe that it was going to be a friendly discussion to exemplify the problems which we had to work through in order to clarify the issues, etc.
I wrote a blistering letter afterwards to Senators Stevenson and Schmitt, saying that we had been misled by members of the [Senate] staff and that I thought that Stevenson misinterpreted a number of significant issues.64 It was to some extent a response to this hearing. There was a period of time when we didn't know what would result from this. The NIH had several possible actions. There was no threat of a suit or a danger of serious legal action. But they could have really made it difficult for us.
We had discussions with the UCSF staff afterwards about what we were to do and what our response was to this set of questions. Then perhaps as is typical of these hearings, as I understand it, they keep you hanging. They also don't do anything unless they have a concrete action.
Hughes
Did the letter represent a turning point? Would you have been censured if you hadn't written it?
Rutter
I don't know. I doubt it because I believe that they realized that when it came right down to it, the NIH's guidelines and their interpretations were not well developed. The NIH carried out an investigation (though not an extensive one) and concluded that the incident was understandable. They wrote a letter of apology for
I remember very well talking with Barbara Culliton about the issues. Barbara was on the editorial staff of Science and she realized what the issues were. I told her I wished she would write an article on this situation. I think that she felt that she couldn't, since Nicholas Wade had already written a report. She mentioned there was a kind of a division in Science, with a group of reporters who were the flamboyant type, and another group of editorial writers who were more conservative. The two didn't mix well. She was for, I think, a more sober discussion of the pluses and minuses of cloning and the effects the guidelines and regulations were having on the conduct of science.
On one side, we had the option of "going public" on this matter; becoming aggressive, or remaining passive. I remember after the initial press conference, I met with David Perlman of the San Francisco Chronicle. David asked about the cloning process, etcetera. I didn't mention the pMB9/pBR322 issue. (This happened before publishing this Science paper.) I've heard that David always felt that I didn't tell him the whole truth, so he was pissed off.
Hughes
I don't understand why you were keeping it from him.
Rutter
I don't understand why you don't understand. Because at that time this would have simply brought it all in the open. If we had wanted to discuss it, we would have published a letter or article in Science, not discuss it in the public press.
This was very difficult for me personally, but I still think I did the right thing, so I have a clear conscience about it. We don't have laws to regulate recombinant DNA research, and we have enough surveillance on these matters. If we had laws, we'd have progressively more constrained use of recombinant DNA methodology. Wherever you see regulations, you see a depression in the utilization of the science for technology, higher costs, longer timelines, more frustration.
Genetic engineering in the plant world has become ridiculous. Because of concerns, companies began to clothe their scientists [in space suits] in the field. This in turn engendered the response that it must be dangerous. So the situations became
Courtesy of University Archives, The Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-6000; http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/info
http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt7q2nb2hm&brand=oac4
Title: The Department of Biochemistry and the Molecular Approach to Biomedicine at the University of California, San Francisco: Volume 1
By: William J. Rutter, Ph.D., Creator, Sally Smith Hughes, Ph.D., Interviewer
Date: 1998
Contributing Institution: University Archives, The Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-6000; http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/info
Copyright Note: Copyright status unknown. Some materials in these collections may be - protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). In addition, the - reproduction, and/or commercial use, of some materials may be restricted - by gift or purchase agreements, donor restrictions, privacy and - publicity rights, licensing agreements, and/or trademark rights. - Distribution or reproduction of materials protected by copyright beyond - that allowed by fair use requires the written permission of the - copyright owners. To the extent that restrictions other than copyright - apply, permission for distribution or reproduction from the applicable - rights holder is also required. Responsibility for obtaining - permissions, and for any use rests exclusively with the user.