Money and murder: the dark side of the Asilomar meeting on recombinant DNA
By Matthew Cobb,
Nature
| 02. 17. 2025
On 24 February 1975, some 150 people met at the Asilomar Conference Grounds near Monterey on the Californian coast. They were mostly scientists from the United States, together with representatives of various companies and government agencies, and 16 journalists. Their subject was the new technology of recombinant DNA — molecules created in a laboratory by stitching together genetic material from different organisms. Researchers were excited by the possibilities for discoveries, and the potential of the technique to produce drugs, for example using specially engineered bacteria to make insulin. But they were also terrified that they might inadvertently create diseases that could infect lab workers and the wider community.
By the end of the meeting, its participants had agreed to adopt biosafety protocols that are still in force in the United States, and which have hugely influenced similar regulations worldwide. The meeting has become known simply as Asilomar, a byword for how a scientific community came together to forge consensus on a thorny topic. It is often held up as an example of how science can self-regulate without the involvement of...
Related Articles
By Jenny Lange, BioNews | 12.01.2025
A UK toddler with a rare genetic condition was the first person to receive a new gene therapy that appears to halt disease progression.
Oliver, now three years old, has Hunter syndrome, an inherited genetic disorder that leads to physical...
By Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
By Pam Belluck and Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 11.19.2025
Gene-editing therapies offer great hope for treating rare diseases, but they face big hurdles: the tremendous time and resources involved in devising a treatment that might only apply to a small number of patients.
A study published on Wednesday...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...