The Washington Post
Activist Challenges Gene-Transfer Research
November 20, 1984
Author: Cristine Russell, Washington Post Staff Writer
Nearly eight years ago, Jeremy Rifkin and a small band of followers invaded a meeting
on genetic engineering at the National Academy of Sciences, staging a demonstration and
carrying signs such as "Don't Tread on My Genes."
It was the beginning of a largely one-man protest movement that has challenged scientists
in this new field to consider the social, moral and environmental questions raised by their
revolutionary research, in which genetic material from different organisms is joined in
combinations not normally found in nature.
Other critics have come and gone, but Rifkin -- author, activist and head of a private
group called the Foundation on Economic Trends -- has persisted in his crusade. In the
process, his tactics have changed, from disruptive confrontation to a more traditional use
of the law and the news media that has succeeded in focusing greater public scrutiny on
the research.
Researchers strongly believe that the scientific, medical and agricultural payoffs of
genetic engineering studies have been shown to outweigh any risks.
But much to their annoyance, Rifkin succeeded earlier this year in winning an injunction
against federally backed experiments involving release of genetically engineered
organisms into the environment, a decision that is under appeal.
Recently, Rifkin sued the Agriculture Department in an attempt to stop research
involving transfer of genes between higher animals to breed bigger livestock. He also
petitioned the National Institutes of Health to halt basic research involving gene transfers
between species but was unsuccessful.
In doing so, Rifkin has become a force that scientists in the field no longer can afford to
ignore. The mere mention of his name draws a swift reaction, ranging from fury to
begrudging respect.
Dr. Henry Miller of the Food and Drug Administration, his voice filled with contempt,
calls Rifkin a "professional obstructionist . . . . He is really something of a public
nuisance."
"Mr. Rifkin and his organizaton are a scourge on science. He and it should be completely
ignored," wrote Dr. Bernard H. Berne in a recent letter to the influential Recombinant
DNA Advisory Committee, which reviews genetic engineering research for the NIH.
"He clearly annoys a lot of us. But we have to take him seriously because he does
interfere," said Dr. Susan Gottesman, a National Cancer Institute scientist and member of
the advisory committee.
"Most scientists wish he would go away. I'd rather have these arguments in public than
gloss over the whole thing. In that sense he's doing us a favor," said Dr. Fred Rapp, a
Pennsylvania State University microbiologist who also serves on the committee.
"He's not a scientist . . . . I think it's good to have people asking questions of us in
science," said David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist who has been a consultant to Rifkin
and the government gene panel.
Its chairman, California lawyer Robert Mitchell, said that "if Rifkin didn't exist, we'd
probably have to invent him."
At its most recent meeting, the advisory committee debated the philosophical and
practical aspects of Rifkin's proposal to shut down research involving the transfer of
genes between higher species, research that he views as "morally reprehensive" and a
"violation of the rights of every species."
The panel unanimously rejected the controversial proposal, saying that "the long-term
possibilities for treatment of human and animal disease and the development of more
efficient food sources make it a moral imperative that we strongly oppose the blanket
prohibition."
In response, Rifkin said he plans to extend his suit against the USDA to include the NIH.
In a recent interview in his Dupont Circle office, he defended his opposition to genetic
engineering, saying he is not "anti-science" but rather is challenging scientists' attitudes.
"They believe the way to advance knowledge is to get control over the forces of nature,"
he said. "Nature wasn't placed here for us."
His attack on genetic engineering, a technology "so powerful" that he compares it to early
man's discovery of fire, stems from a longstanding concern about "basic changes in
America." A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania with a master's degree from
Tufts in law and diplomacy, Rifkin, 39, was a late-1960s antiwar activist and VISTA
volunteer.
He headed two alternative groups, the People's Bicentennial Commission and the
People's Business Commission, before starting his latest foundation. The author of eight
books on history, science and technology, he raises money for his activities from his
publications, college speaking tours and other private foundations.
Rifkin said he plans to keep after genetic engineering scientists "until there's a change of
consciousness . . . . I'm like one of those dogs yapping at your heels. Sooner or later you
adjust your walk."
Copyright (c) 1984 The Washington Post