Biotechnology and Open University Science

Revolution is a word that is often applied to areas of rapid scientific advance and, as such, it refers not only to a field's progress but also to the width and depth of its consequences. The term is thus appropriately applied to molecular genetics, because the capability for intervention in genetic systems has been elevated dramatically (offering a prospect of further resolution of central biological questions) and because success in practical application has been demonstrated in a number of laboratories. Such revolutions naturally bring a heady sense of progress; but they also can generate concern about unanticipated risks and effects. Certainly for recombinant DNA research, concern has accompanied the exhilaration of discovery almost from the moment of first reporting. Concerns have arisen about inadvertent or deliberate production of new pathogens, about misapplication to create monstrous new kinds of organisms, and about possible subversion of the established order of the living world. And even though a decade of the molecular genetic revolution has produced no such consequences, the sense of anxious tension is not fully gone. One of the central issues raised in connection with the commercial utilization of molecular genetics is the effect on the academic world that spawned the new developments. Put in its most bald form, the question is whether what has come to be called biotechnology will poison the well from which it sprang-academic biological science. More explicitly, will commercial application significantly inhibit the free flow of information that traditionally has been thought to characterize the academic environment? Why do these questions arise? Because, in the midst of a rapidly expanding field, theory and practical application of molecular genetics suddenly were brought into close juxtaposition; many research questions at the cutting edge of the discipline were simultaneously significant in both directions. Under these unusual circumstances, theoretical advance had relatively near-term commercial value. Results of fundamental investigation became potential intellectual property, with all that such a term implies in the commercial and legal realms. Can an open academic environment survive when it is generating commercial property of high value to investigators, to their universities, to investors, to corporate industry? Can open scientific communication continue among research scientists who are also technologists committed to private financial gain? The possible effect on open scientific communication has not been, in fact, the only concern expressed in these discussions. Should the sustained public investment in molecular geneticsthrough Federal support over at least two decadesbe recouped, at least in part? Should rewards to investigators long supported by public funds be so large as almost to mock the traditional academic reward system? Should rewards to universities for discoveries within their walls be an occasional bonanza or should they become a primary source of academic funding? How should such rewards Clifford Grobstein is Professor of Biological Science and Public Policy, Program in Science, Technology and Public Affairs, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093. This essay was produced with the support of funds from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities under NSF Grant RII8309874

Biology · Engineering ethics · Environmental ethics · Epistemology · Political science · Biomedical and Engineering Education · Engineering · Philosophy · Biotechnology

• Overview

  Open Access•Rosemary Chalk•Science Technology & Human Values•1985

  Add to list

• Access to data and material for research

  Open Access•Victor Rodríguez•New Genetics and Society•2009

  Add to list

• The new politics of science

  David Dickson•The new politics of science•1984

  Add to list