The Washington Post
U.S. Judge Halts Experiment in Gene Altering
May 17, 1984
Author: Philip J. Hilts, Washington Post Staff Writer
U.S. District Court Judge John J. Sirica yesterday halted the first experiment designed to
take gene- engineered microbes out of the laboratory and test them in the open field.
Sirica granted a temporary injunction to stop a University of California experiment and
all other experiments that "deliberately release" gene-engineered organisms into the
environment. The court will conduct a full hearing later on whether the federal
government violated the law in approving the experiments without fully assessing
environmental impact.
"The case could be extremely important," said Jeremy Rifkin, the author and social
activist who filed suit against the release of some possible frost-preventing genes into a
potato field.
"It could be the key to starting a national debate. It will force the National Institutes of
Health to reconsider how it is going to oversee biotechnology work in the United States,"
he said.
Rifkin, his Foundation on Economic Trends and other plaintiffs in the suit charged that
the NIH, in approving the experiments, failed to consider the work's possible impact on
the environment and therefore failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act, which requires such assessments before "major federal action".
David Dorinson, associate counsel for the University of California, said he would
immediately appeal the decision, which could affect an entire class of applied geneengineering work.
"The court's ruling, if upheld, would have a devastating effect on the field of recombinant
DNA research," Dorinson said. If the decision stands, it could be several years before this
kind of biology, especially agricultural work, could be practiced in federally funded
institutions in the U.S., he said.
Experiments affected by the ruling will be all gene-engineering experiments that are done
with federal funds and put their final products into the environment--crops altered to
resist disease or pests, for example, or microbes engineered to degrade sewage or toxic
chemicals.
Since industry normally does not receive federal funds for its gene-engineering work,
companies may continue extensive agricultural experiments, but most universities may
not.
Sirica enjoined the government from "approving or continuing to approve the deliberate
release of recombinant DNA" into the environment. Recombinant DNA refers to
organisms that have had genes (deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA) altered or "recombined"
in the laboratory.
The University of California experiment which triggered the court action was a field test
intended to put specially engineered microbes on potato plants to protect them from frost.
The experiment had been tested successfully in the laboratory, and a 1-acre field near
Tule Lake, Calif., has been planted for the test but not yet sprayed with the microbes.
The bacteria to be sprayed on the potatoes is Pseudomonas syringae, which exists on
virtually all plants. It helps trigger the formation of ice on vegetation and thus causes
millions of dollars of frost damage annually in this country.
In the tests, the syringae bacterium was altered by removing a section of its DNA--the
section responsible for helping ice crystals form on plants.
The altered bacteria would be sprayed on the plants as soon as they sprout so that the
"innocent" non-frost-triggering bacteria can take over the niche on the plant where the
similiar, damaging bacterium used to preside.
In greenhouse versions of the experiment, the microbes gave the potatoes resistance to
frost damage down to 23 degrees Fahrenheit. Potatoes usually begin to suffer frost
damage at about 30 degrees.
Sirica said he would not decide the final case on scientific issues or the question of risk,
but on matters of law--chiefly whether NIH's environmental assessment satisfied the
environmental policy act.
But the suit was triggered by concern that the frost-prevention experiment and others
could cause unforeseen environmental damage. The chief danger cited in the plaintiffs'
affidavits was that the new bacterium would greatly change the relative numbers of frostsensitive and frost-resistant plants and insects in the environment. It could reduce the
populations of beneficial insects and plants or increase noxious ones inadvertently.
Steven Lindow, chief scientist on the California experiment, said he had done three years
work in the lab, greenhouse and field, all of which show that there is little risk of the
altered bacterium spreading or causing harm.
Oddly, a California biotechnology company which backed Lindow's work may proceed
under the judge's ruling.
The company has applied to NIH to do field tests of the same frost-preventing bacterium.
Copyright (c) 1984 The Washington Post