Illustration: A. Canamucio There once was a feeling in society--an "awe" if you will--that science was nearly perfect and would make everything okay: If there is a problem, don't worry, science can come up with the answer. Cancer--no big deal. Cheap energy--why not. Fixing genetic abnormalities--a piece of cake. However, over the past few decades, science has lost a great deal of public support. With Three Mile Island and Love Canal, thalidomide and DES, mad cow disease, the Challenger explosion

A few months ago, I wrote of my concern about the lack of public debate and discussion on the social and ethical implications of biotechnology.1 More recently, I posed the argument for a revisitation to the National Academy of Sciences "Asilomar" conference in 1975, which, as its predecessor, would help outline the myths and realities of recombinant DNA research and truly establish a proactive debate on science policy. Unlike its predecessor, however, the new conference I am proposing would inc

Several announcements on biotechnology research have made the front pages of the country's major newspapers over the past few months. Stories have ranged from gene therapy on a fetus, to the highly competitive race to crack the human gene code, to an attempt to transfer genes from the egg of an infertile woman into the egg of another woman in the hopes of achieving a viable pregnancy. As with the announcement two years ago of the cloning of an adult ewe in Scotland, these reports cause feelings

I applaud Bill and Melinda Gates and their astounding donation to the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH). Having worked with PATH on contraceptive availability in Brazil and hepatitis B vaccine studies in Thailand while I was with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), I am a big fan of both their remarkable vision and their continued commitment to bring innovative technologies to the developing world. While a very large percentage of the Gates endowment will (