In an editorial in the August 11 issue, "Will Society Be Prepared",

Dr. Marshall W. Nirenberg wrote about the prospects of molecular genetics:

   "Cells will be programmed with synthetic messages within 25

   years, and when man.becomes capable of programming his own

   cells, he must refrain fron doing so until he has sufficient

  wisdom to use this knowledge for the benefit of mankind."

  No subject of policy is more important than this, and it deserves

the most critical debate.  There is some danger that, whether so intended

or not, Nirenberg's language could generate public misunderstandings that

might undercut the very research needed to reach sufficient wisdom.

   His underlying concern, which I share, is for the use of biological

control by a malevolent government to the peril of individual freedom.
As Hitler's race policy illustrated only too well, the Gtate(s access to
forc&ble compulsion already gives it the power of genoside.

   Presumably we have to be even more concerned about subtler mistakes.

A well-intentioned government might impose rash commitments for the sake

of short-run advantages.  Plainly we must be very sensitive about innova-

tions that, once introduced, constituted irreversible evolutionary deviation

   However, in reading Nirenberg's editorial, we should emphasize the

distinction between evolutionary deviation and euphenics, i.e., the

reprogramming of somatic cells and the modification
                   --                   of development.

"Message" does carry a strong connotation of RNA messengers with somatic

effects.  To interdict such personal uses of messages would be hard to

IS.

justify without a prohibition on all new medicine, especially such inter-

ventions as the use of hormones.  If only germinal messages are meant, we


2.

have other prospects to worry about too,  The manipulation of germ cells

for genetic surgery would almost certainly be preceded by techniques for

clonal propagation and for chromosome manipulations in human beings:which

would already have the most cogent evolutionary implications.

Human culture - as Mu&ler has pointed out - is already a major
                     .- .

commitment of individual development 'to formative influences decided by

the community.  Our educational systems are certainly a form of psychological

engineering scare@ly different in fundamental principle from the biological

interventions that our knowledge of nucleic acids is likely to bring about.

In point of fact, we already practise biological engineering on a rather

large scale by use of live viruses in mass immunization campaigns. While

these are of indubitable value for preventing serious diseases, their-global

impact on the development of human beings of a wide range of genotypes is

hard to af3gess at our present stage of wisdom.  Crude virus preparations

such as are in common use at the present time are also vulnerable to
                                  4t-

frightful mishaps of contamination and misidentification. Live viruses

are themselves genetic messages used for the purpose of programming human

cells for the synthesis of immunizing virus antigens.  Dr. Nirenberg's

cautions are just as relevant to considerations of contemporary policy as

they are for the ever-widening applications of molecular biology in the

near future.

Joshua Lederberg
Professor of Genetics
Stanford University School of Medicine

\
\ F   Our main concern must be to maximize the role of individual decision.

This could be defeated by overenthusiastic policin, 7 against personal initiative
and experimentation as well as by premature positive measures imposed by the State.