NEWS

Scientific openness faces reality check

Biologists must shake themselves out the meeting agreed that the primary re- after, funding a project, noted John
of their denial and voluntarily relin- sponsibility for devising standards lies Marburger, director of the White
quish some of their with scientists. Several ex- House Office on Science and
freedom before it is perts invoked the Asilomar Technology.
too late, warned lead- moratorium on DNA re- “This is a new concept for the life sci-
ing scientists and poli- combination as an example ences but an old one for physics,”
cymakers at a January of the kind of scientist-led Marburger said. But in contrast to nu-
2003 meeting on sci- intervention the situation clear research, regulating biological re-
© 2003 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/naturemedicine

ence and security, held warrants. search is complicated because it is

at the US National Still, the opinions of broad, easily hidden and more easily
Academy of Sciences most scientists at the meet- mastered, he said. Most biological re-
in Washington D.C. If ing fell squarely on the side search is also dual-use, meaning it has
scientists don’t rise to of scientific openness. applications for both offensive and
the occasion, they run “We cannot build walls peaceful purposes.
the risk of facing blan- and attempt to segregate Although American scientists are tak-
ket restrictions created potentially sensitive in- ing the lead in the discussions, what-
by undiscerning legis- formation,” said Bruce ever checks and balances they adopt
Bruce Alberts advocates ope-
lators. Alberts, president of the will be meaningless unless they are hon-
ness in science
Unlike physicists, National Academy of ored internationally, added Alberts.
biologists have thus Sciences. “Anyone who thinks we can prevent
far been spared by government restric- “There is already classified research others from learning and applying tech-
tions. But although such limits may underway, just as there has always niques is making a serious mistake,” he
seem unsavory, scientists must wise up been,” Alberts noted, adding that such said. “For example, right now India is
to the political climate and find ways research is currently protected. advertising for biotechnology students,
to cooperate with security experts, said Research is now classified according to saying it can provide the same quality
John Hamre, president and CEO of the National Security Decision Directive of education as that found in the US for
Center for Strategic and International 189, created during the Reagan era and about a tenth of the price.”
Studies, which co-sponsored the event. endorsed by the current administra- The debate will probably continue in
Security experts now “look at the sci- tion, which says that, “to the maxi- March at a meeting in Baltimore,
entific community as insubordinate mum extent possible, the products of Maryland, sponsored by the American
and naive,” Hamre said. If the two fundamental research [should] remain Society of Microbiology. The goal is to
groups do not soon begin a construc- unrestricted.” create an organized system to “develop
tive dialogue, he warned, “it will be a But given the circumstances, Alberts rational choices” for research, Alberts
disaster.” said, “we could certainly develop a said. But “such a system requires more,
Because few people in the national more sophisticated system than we not less, dissemination of scientific in-
security community have an appropri- have now.” formation.”
ate background to decide what consti- Federal agencies can earmark certain Apoorva Mandavilli, New York &
tutes ‘sensitive’ research, speakers at research as classified before, but not Elizabeth Tracey, Washington, D.C.

New Stanford institute sparks cloning quarrel

The creation of Stanford University’s
privately funded institute to incorpo-
rate basic stem cell research into clini-
cal medicine has set off a public
squabble between President Bush’s
Council on Bioethics, the press and the
institute’s newly appointed director,
Irving Weissman. The row underscores
the misunderstandings about differ-
ences between therapeutic and repro-
ductive cloning.
The imbroglio began 11 December,
when Stanford announced that an
anonymous donor had provided $12
million to build the Stanford
Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and
Medicine Institute. In discussing the
plans for the new facility, Weissman ac-
knowledged that researchers would
eventually create human embryos
through nuclear transfer techniques, a
procedure also known as
therapeutic cloning. However, the
Associated Press reported that Stanford
would be “cloning human embryos,”
forcing Stanford to issue a statement
explaining that “creating human stem
cell lines is not equivalent to human
cloning,” and that the institute’s plans
Irving Weissman objects to the term ‘cloning’
were to create only cells, not human
embryos.
On its website, Stanford claimed that posed research. But the council offi-
the President’s Council on Bioethics cially considers the work to be “cloning
supported this view as well as its pro- for biomedical research,” and Leon

156 NATURE MEDICINE • VOLUME 9 • NUMBER 2 • FEBRUARY 2003