The purpose of the "round table discussions" was to get closer to the life circumstances which had led the participants to the kind of work they are doing. Thus it was a deeply personal event which called for a certain courage from the participants as well as a sympathetic ear from an audience which was later on invited to participate.
The participants of the discussions were five people with a long or intense connection with the subject of the conference chaired by Bas Pedroli, an ecologist from the Netherlands.
Two topics were named by the conference committee and the discussion leader Pedroli for the "evening round table discussions": the first evening the persons' enthusiasm on the story of genetic engineering should be the topic, the second evening the more problematic side of genetic engineering, i.e. ethical problems, should be dealt with.
Before giving a report on the discussions I have to remark that a real discussion did not start at the first evening of the "round table discussions", perhaps because the five persons who were supposed to discuss did not know each other very well, or perhaps because of the bad acoustic circumstances, too. So this summary may sometimes appear a bit confused because of the many jumps between different themes forced by the discussion leader (Pedroli), who started the discussion with the request to the discussing panel to describe the first moment they got enthusiastic upon genetic engineering in their life.
Very biographic but different aspects were mentioned making it obvious that most of such moments appeared in combination with very fundamental researches on DNA and genetic engineering. For example, Goodwin mentioned the research of Watson and Crick on DNA in combination with Monod's research. Hohn told about her enthusiasm while finding out how bacteria insert gene-sequences in plant-cells. Boer became most enthusiastic when bacteria were forced to produce insulin with an artificial gene inserted in them and Lindemann got the fever with the new knowledge that genes regulate cancer forms like leukemia, so the appearance of this disease became a little more predictable in diagnostics. All persons vividly described the moment in their biography they became enthusiastic about the efforts of genetic engineering.
On the question of pre-scientific experiences that influenced this enthusiasm Goodwin explained that after some real experience of nature by reading a biography of Madame Curie he felt the romantic mood of discovering something. Boer's youth in a Dutch village did at first not influence him, but after a period of laboratory work in the United States the experiences of his youth came back to him while working on the first transgenetic bull in the Netherlands. Salgo's first interest in science as a child was to discover what was behind the dashboard and one question that drove him was the wave and the particular theory of light.
What followed were two essential statements that were not discussed any further: on the one hand the statement by Lindemann that genetic engineering is nothing extraordinary, but just one possible technique or instrument to help people with serious diseases, for which it is to early to say how effective it can be. On the other hand Hohn argued that scientists must be stubborn enough not to give up in experiments which do not work, always continuing to improve either their models or experiments.
The next question was on science nowadays as something that develops too rapidly. Goodwin explained that when he realized that the microscopic view developed too rapidly while he tried to understand in which context genes act, he became engaged in the discussion about these technologies. For him the development of the technology became too rapid to be controlled. Thus, he stated, we have to find safety and ethical standards. This standpoint Hohn did not share because for her the rapidity of scientific development, especially when taking the example of DNA transferred by bacteria to any other organism, is the potential of science. At this point Boer added that this research came at the same time when enzymes were detected that could cut DNA in several small pieces so the process of transferring DNA sequences which represent a certainty could be controlled.
While discussing this tempo Goodwin explained the necessity of security issues to the others. For example, virus contaminated vaccines which were let out of the laboratory were sold to another company and in the end nobody really knew where they came from. The fact that this was recognized too late led him to call for a strict supervision of free and commercial laboratories so that someone could be made responsible if such a fault occurs. Everyone in the production process, i.e. every company, should know that a product might have a side-effect. Therefore the whole research and production process should be controlled.
At this point the question: "Would you drink the milk of a manipulated cow?" was raised from the audience, a question which did not only apply to genetic engineering but to any artificial food product by classical breeding in which a new peptide appears, too. For Goodwin this was another argument for a safer research to keep the risk of unexpected products low. And he stated that the risk of destabilization becomes much bigger by DNA transfer over a greater taxonomic barrier. A consensus between all participants of the discussion was reached that destabilization by the unknown is not only a problem of genetic engineering but for breeding ecology as well.
Another question by the audience focused on the commercial influence on research, for example the production and early release of a potato with more protein. To this problem Hohn replied that there must be a balance between research and the risk, especially for the third world. Another commercial interest might be the taking out the patent on some new genetic research product Boer added. For him the problems of genetic engineering are comparable to the nuclear power research process in which the scientists considered everything to be controllable so the industry picked it up to have some effect of it.
A further question coming from the audience was if DNA in evolution is considered simply as a static registration office whose changes are driving evolution, and if so, how information comes in it and how it changes. For Goodwin this had always appeared as a paradox of stability and fluidity, environmental and intrinsic factors of the individual in which evolution is driven. Lindemann interjected that, for example, the stability of DNA might be easily disturbed by a retro-virus which affects a tumor.
The discussion then went to feelings and scruples. Everybody agreed that they could not been taken as the only basis for judgement of solutions to such problems. Boer lost his scruples at his work when he discussed his research with other interested people. The high rate of scruples in genetic engineering according to Lindemann occurs because we are related to the living beings more than to other parts of nature, which may let us conclude that any changing of DNA will have an effect on ourselves, because we are related through DNA. So the question on genetic engineering for him is only whether it is helpful or a risk. Hohn added that a concern surely would stop a process when risks occur.
A last question this evening was: "Do you feel the constraints that became obvious all the time?" For Lindemann constraints are a necessity, but in a research which is not primary useful a the scientist becomes free from constraints like money. Goodwin stated that science cannot ignore the constraints of morality and gene-technological effects on ecology as well as feelings which tell us something that appears to be really important.
The second evening Lindemann had to leave the conference for another congress to which he had to give some contribution so Malnoe took his place. The discussion leader (Pedroli) introduced the first problem to be discussed - the Dilemma of a scientist - by a very personal example: His task was to prevent fishes from swimming into the turbines of a water power station, but he could not implement his own good ideas on that because it was too difficult to justify these ideas in certain constraints.
For Goodwin the greatest dilemma is, that the knowledge of scientists is chopped into many small pieces, so desire for a situation comes up in which one can transcend the view of these pieces into reintegration, thereby getting a sharp knowledge of problems and a holistic view at the same time. Malnoe described her happy feelings when she first viewed a cell division with the appearance of chromosomes under a microscope. Later on she realized that she became very involved with this side of science. Thus the dilemma between research and public opinion arose in her. For Hohn research is not only science but working with people. She gave two examples for dilemma (specialization of the scientist and being mother and scientist at the same) not to be discussed further. Boer then first explained a small dilemma for him: to work for some research project one dislikes but one has to do it to earn money. But his big dilemma is to decide between the principle that the health of animals should not be affected by genetic engineering at the one hand and on the other hand the problem to work on a project of high financial interests at the same time in which one can not assess if animals health will be affected or not. Boer again stated that money is the most important factor for him as well as a commercial interest in new research.
Salgo explained, that he came to the conference to get a better judgement whether he should take out patents on genetic engineering products or not, but out of conviction he is against patenting an oncomouse. To Boers statement: No patents, No drugs, Salgo agreed, but he doubts if we really need genetic engineering. Malnoes finds genetic engineering necessary, but it should be recognized as an evolutionary progress in which the scientist is involved. She herself is working on pesticide resistance of plants for which genetic engineering is really important because it is much easier than breeding. For her it is also interesting to work with animals and plants which have gene material breeding has eliminated.
Hohn gave an example of what is important for her research. As a person who does basic research wanting to know how something works and the success of finding it out is what keeps her going. It is not important for her if a research can be used, misused or not used. That is what the company she works for has to decide. For Boer this kind of research seems to be problematic because in this way only the company which gets the research list can decide to use the results or not - a point Hohn has never considered because she was not interested in patent law. Goodwin now asked if one would work for company which suppressed publications. Hohn and Boer would not if they had a good alternative in career and money. Under certain circumstances suppression occurs as Hohn explained to Goodwin's question.
The discussion leader (Pedroli's) questioning led Malnoe to the statement that the scientist merely discovers what is possible, it is up to society then to decide whether or not to realize the possible. In Malnoe's opinion a governmental committee to control research and its use seems to be enough, because she as the laboratory-scientist has not got enough experience in agricultural use of her research. One member of the audience at this point stated that freedom of research implies a responsibility. Malnoe agreed, but for her a decision based on responsibility must be achieved in a discussion, because she as the scientist can not decide alone but only withdraw for a good reason. Hohn agreed to that because she, too, is a very specialized laboratory-scientist.
For Boer there was no reason why the products of classical breeding should not go through the same procedure as genetic engineering products. This is why Goodwin wants more restriction - Boer put this in a different perspective with the statement that benefits and risks of research are at the same level. Here the discussion returned to some statements made the first evening.
The last question by the discussion leader (Pedroli) to the panel was what they wanted to have achieved in ten years. Boer wants to develop more medicine that benefits, Hohn wants to create a whole virus (a living thing), Salgo wants to understand what a gene really is and Malnoe wants to come in contact with more people who have different opinions. Goodwin wants to be able to say, that in recognizing that we all have participated in a fundamental transformation of nature, these were the seeds to recognize the right way.
The discussions did not come to a final conclusion, but It became obvious that in the career story of Herman de Boer, the 'spiritual father' of 'Herman the (transgenic) Bull', there was a point where he felt that the realization had gone too far, even for him as scientist. This illustrates that ethical individualism is inseparable from everything we do in life, and is even part of the knowledge process itself. So, watching these "round table discussions", one might sum up to say that genetic engineering as well as classical breeding must be controlled by some institution that is independent from any commercial interest, perhaps national-political interest too. A problematic aspect that became apparent in the discussions was the limited perspective of many scientists that do not assess the consequences and the effect of their work any longer. These two points, responsibility and specialization, might be a future project for education.