Just a Little Nervous

Despite the gray skies and occasional downpours, 300 protestors bused out one late April Sunday to Southboro, the site of Harvard's Regional Primate Center. They spent the afternoon in a mock funeral procession--coffin and all--for the animals they said were poorly treated inside. The demonstration was timed specifically to coincide with similar protests in three other American cities and 10 other countries. But for Massachusetts highlighted a growing general public concern about scientific research, and increasing pressure for government to control it.

This year, as part of the animal research protests a "dog pound seizer" bill was introduced and only narrowly defeated in the state legislature. On other fronts a statewide referendum passed which will curb nuclear waste disposal and, some scientists fear biomedical research which generates such waste as a by product. A city referendum will appear on the November ballot to ban nuclear development and research in Cambridge.

These movements reflect a "growing awareness of the secondary effects of research and a growing concern about the impact of science technology," says Everett I. Mendelsohn, professor of the History of Science and a noted expert on science policy. Parker I Coddington, one of Harvard's lobbyists who has been forced to confront these movement concurs: "The full 1000 percent confidence in science that existed a decade or so ago is gone."

The first real conflict that took place in the area came up about seven years ago over genetics and recombinant DNA. It not only pitted activist against researcher, but divided the scientific community as well Nobel laureates George Wald, Higgins Professor of Biology, and James D. Watson, Cabot Professor of Natural Science, openly clashed as leftist Wald opposed unbridled research while Watson who helped discover DNA two decades earlier argued the case for free rein.

The controversy focused in part on the ethical problems of creating life in the lab, but it was mostly over the potential health hazards resulting from the creation of new bacteria strains which could foil the human immune system. For several months recombinant DNA research was banned completely in Cambridge, and eventually the City Council passed an ordinance which made binding the National Institute of Health's guidelines for genetics research. The council also outlawed the so-called "P-4" research, or the most dangerous experimentation dealing with infectious organisms such as diphtheria toxin and yellow fever virus.

Looking back at the restrictions that were eventually adopted, most scientists acknowledge that the impact was minimal. ordinance does not seem to affect scientists says Lynn Harding, Harvard's explaining that the act prohibits for which Harvard.

For about three min did was discuss the Brattle brought to the Boston over the chartists social responsible chased for that controversy in the DNA debate covered both the ends and means of the work, the three issues currently under scrutiny neatly fall into only one or the other of these categories. No one protests the medical breakthroughs resulting from radioactive lab work, or from experimentation on lab animals, but the sentiment is that the methods are excessive. On the other side, the activists view the development of nuclear weapons, no matter how it's done, as evil.

The animal research question has been boiling for about a decade as activists have repeatedly introduced legislation to limit such research. But last year the bill made the most progress, passing the state House of Representatives before getting lost in the shuffle of the Senate, and it officially died when the session ended. The specific vehicle is the attempt to repeal the "dog pound seizure act," in order to deny researchers access to captured canines and force them to purchase the more expensive lab-bred type. Harvard uses about 2500 pound dogs a year and professors say the measure would make the current level of research prohibitive by boosting animal prices tenfold. It might also stem completely some areas of research, because breeders specialize in smaller dogs, such as beagles, while cardiovascular research, for example requires larger dogs such as German shepherd or retrievers.

Proponents of the bill say that most pound animals are pets, and that the lab life is too cruel Scientists respond that most of these animals are strays, and that the pound death they face--gassing--is much crueler than vivisection.

Some of the more extreme activists acknowledge that their ultimate goal is to ban all animal research. Aaron Medlock, executive director of the New England Anti-Vivisection League, says that "there are major discrepancies between results of tests animals and on humans and scientists have not figured it out. There are cases in the paper every day of the discrepancies. DES, Oraflex, and Zomax were all approved on the basis of animal research."

Scientists, not surprisingly, challenge these claims, and further maintain that animals are necessary to train researchers and doctors. "Using animals does give clues as to toxins. You have to start somewhere, and it is better to start with animals than people," says John E. Dowling, professor of Biology.

The nuclear waste issue came to a head last November, when state voters gave a referendum limiting the disposal of radioactive waste resounding support.

In this instance, the issue did not involve research directly; the bill was aimed at nuclear power plants. But a significant portion of bio medical research is used to generate such waste. The bill actually exempts such research, but universities insist that provision is useless. If all other waste disposal is curbed, then universities would have to establish their own facilities--a fiscally infeasible proposition, they say. "If we are deprived of a place to dump we could see large cutbacks in research," says Jacob Shapiro, radiological health and safety engineer to the University Health Services, and a nationally known expert on the problems of low level radioactive waste disposal.

Mendelsohn calls such a reaction a classic case of scientists' unwillingness to adjust to public needs. He says that researchers should voluntarily restrict their research if they cannot dispose of waste properly, charging that many scientists "put in danger future generations so they can get on with their research."

Perhaps the greatest demand for scientists to realize the impact of their work comes from the anti-nuclear weapons campaign. For several years peace groups have tried to force Charles Stark Draper Laboratories, which receives $116 million a year in nuclear weapons-related contracts, to cease work on defense systems. With the recent growth of the anti-nuclear movement, Nuclear Free Cambridge has finally received well over the 3800 signatures needed to put a referendum on the November ballot to curtail or eliminate defense work in Cambridge. The signatures have not yet been verified, but they are expected to clear the minimum when checked.

The proposal, while highly popular, faces a tough fight. Not only must the referendum garner a majority of votes cast, but it must also receive the support of 30 percent of the registered voters, a difficult feat in a odd-year election. Additionally, if passed, it will certainly face a lengthy court battle as researchers challenge the constitutionality of limiting inquiry, and of superset, a federal law (or appropriations measure) with a local statute.

Nevertheless, the strength of the movement reflects the growing reluctance on the part of the public to allow science absolute freedom. "Research is not a neutral activity," says Eric Segal, a member of the steering committee of Nuclear Free Cambridge, "It has implications outside the lab" Drawing as an analogy regulations to control noxious pollution emitted by manufacturers, he argues that communities have the right to limit the work that local businesses do. "We have a lot of respect for scientists, but the government and not the people must have some say in these decisions." Uniting those who call for stricter regulation in any sphere is a concern for the effects of science and a feeling that the issues are too large to be left to the scientists.

Coddington cites as possible causes an increase in fear of radiation, the 1979 accident at the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island, and conflicting testimony among scientists in public debates. Additionally, the synthesis of new, highly lethal chemicals and highly radioactive compounds has taught people the unrealistic nature of the "belief of 20 years ago that you could throw things away--that there was such a place as 'away."

And such sentiment seems especially intense in the Bay State. One reason, of course, is the predominance of scientists who work in Massachusetts. Cambridge alone hosts two of the world's major research centers--Harvard and MIT. Harvard spokesman David Rosen says Massachusetts is a leading center of the movement to demand accountability from scientists because the populace is highly elevated enough to question those in power. Rosen draws a correlation between the concentration of Ph.Ds in an area and anti-research sentiment. "The educated are equipped to ask questions," he adds. While some of the proposed curbs are extreme in their goals, and other promise significant, if unintended, limits for research, the true intent of the popular movement is more modest. It is, say most, just to force scientists to think of the implications of their work at all its stages--something both sides agree would be a good thing.

For about three min did was discuss the Brattle brought to the Boston over the chartists social responsible chased for that controversy in the DNA debate covered both the ends and means of the work, the three issues currently under scrutiny neatly fall into only one or the other of these categories. No one protests the medical breakthroughs resulting from radioactive lab work, or from experimentation on lab animals, but the sentiment is that the methods are excessive. On the other side, the activists view the development of nuclear weapons, no matter how it's done, as evil.

The animal research question has been boiling for about a decade as activists have repeatedly introduced legislation to limit such research. But last year the bill made the most progress, passing the state House of Representatives before getting lost in the shuffle of the Senate, and it officially died when the session ended. The specific vehicle is the attempt to repeal the "dog pound seizure act," in order to deny researchers access to captured canines and force them to purchase the more expensive lab-bred type. Harvard uses about 2500 pound dogs a year and professors say the measure would make the current level of research prohibitive by boosting animal prices tenfold. It might also stem completely some areas of research, because breeders specialize in smaller dogs, such as beagles, while cardiovascular research, for example requires larger dogs such as German shepherd or retrievers.

Proponents of the bill say that most pound animals are pets, and that the lab life is too cruel Scientists respond that most of these animals are strays, and that the pound death they face--gassing--is much crueler than vivisection.

Some of the more extreme activists acknowledge that their ultimate goal is to ban all animal research. Aaron Medlock, executive director of the New England Anti-Vivisection League, says that "there are major discrepancies between results of tests animals and on humans and scientists have not figured it out. There are cases in the paper every day of the discrepancies. DES, Oraflex, and Zomax were all approved on the basis of animal research."

Scientists, not surprisingly, challenge these claims, and further maintain that animals are necessary to train researchers and doctors. "Using animals does give clues as to toxins. You have to start somewhere, and it is better to start with animals than people," says John E. Dowling, professor of Biology.

The nuclear waste issue came to a head last November, when state voters gave a referendum limiting the disposal of radioactive waste resounding support.

In this instance, the issue did not involve research directly; the bill was aimed at nuclear power plants. But a significant portion of bio medical research is used to generate such waste. The bill actually exempts such research, but universities insist that provision is useless. If all other waste disposal is curbed, then universities would have to establish their own facilities--a fiscally infeasible proposition, they say. "If we are deprived of a place to dump we could see large cutbacks in research," says Jacob Shapiro, radiological health and safety engineer to the University Health Services, and a nationally known expert on the problems of low level radioactive waste disposal.

Mendelsohn calls such a reaction a classic case of scientists' unwillingness to adjust to public needs. He says that researchers should voluntarily restrict their research if they cannot dispose of waste properly, charging that many scientists "put in danger future generations so they can get on with their research."

Perhaps the greatest demand for scientists to realize the impact of their work comes from the anti-nuclear weapons campaign. For several years peace groups have tried to force Charles Stark Draper Laboratories, which receives $116 million a year in nuclear weapons-related contracts, to cease work on defense systems. With the recent growth of the anti-nuclear movement, Nuclear Free Cambridge has finally received well over the 3800 signatures needed to put a referendum on the November ballot to curtail or eliminate defense work in Cambridge. The signatures have not yet been verified, but they are expected to clear the minimum when checked.

The proposal, while highly popular, faces a tough fight. Not only must the referendum garner a majority of votes cast, but it must also receive the support of 30 percent of the registered voters, a difficult feat in a odd-year election. Additionally, if passed, it will certainly face a lengthy court battle as researchers challenge the constitutionality of limiting inquiry, and of superset, a federal law (or appropriations measure) with a local statute.

Nevertheless, the strength of the movement reflects the growing reluctance on the part of the public to allow science absolute freedom. "Research is not a neutral activity," says Eric Segal, a member of the steering committee of Nuclear Free Cambridge, "It has implications outside the lab" Drawing as an analogy regulations to control noxious pollution emitted by manufacturers, he argues that communities have the right to limit the work that local businesses do. "We have a lot of respect for scientists, but the government and not the people must have some say in these decisions." Uniting those who call for stricter regulation in any sphere is a concern for the effects of science and a feeling that the issues are too large to be left to the scientists.

Coddington cites as possible causes an increase in fear of radiation, the 1979 accident at the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island, and conflicting testimony among scientists in public debates. Additionally, the synthesis of new, highly lethal chemicals and highly radioactive compounds has taught people the unrealistic nature of the "belief of 20 years ago that you could throw things away--that there was such a place as 'away."

And such sentiment seems especially intense in the Bay State. One reason, of course, is the predominance of scientists who work in Massachusetts. Cambridge alone hosts two of the world's major research centers--Harvard and MIT. Harvard spokesman David Rosen says Massachusetts is a leading center of the movement to demand accountability from scientists because the populace is highly elevated enough to question those in power. Rosen draws a correlation between the concentration of Ph.Ds in an area and anti-research sentiment. "The educated are equipped to ask questions," he adds. While some of the proposed curbs are extreme in their goals, and other promise significant, if unintended, limits for research, the true intent of the popular movement is more modest. It is, say most, just to force scientists to think of the implications of their work at all its stages--something both sides agree would be a good thing.