hen and to a certain extent still exists today a concern unique to the study of rDNA and its related fields. The concern is for the possible development, by some engineering mistake, of a kind of Frankenstein running rampant throughout the environment. This concern has been considered very carefully and has had a large impact on the development of public policy concerning rDNA technology. Continued efforts in research since the Asilomar Conference have shown that the initial rDNA public health concerns no longer need be a major source of concern, as standard recombinant microbial strains have been handled safely and without incident thus far. Because of this good track record, many people now have the opinion that research involving rDNA technology no longer needs regulation, and that this regulation is in fact standing in the way of progress. Dr. Henry Miller, former head of the Biotechnology Policy Office at the FDA, has expressed his concerns about this problem and has proposed steps to rationalize the regulations of biotechnology in the United States (Tanouye, par. 2).There are, however, also many individuals who feel that although the current regulations may not be perfect, they are all that we have. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is involved in the regulation of biotechnology, responded to Dr. Miller's proposed steps by admitting that the developments in biotechnology have incredible potential for the enhancement of society, but that regulations are definitely necessary until all possible safety issues are dealt with effectively (Tanouye, par. 4).So how should the development and use of gene therapy be regulated, and who should be doing the regulating? I would imagine that there are as many answers to these questions as there are people on the planet. So how do we come to any decisions about anything, how do changes come about, and how do we incorporate these changes into our individual lives? I believe these things com...
