Formation Of Biotech Panel Reflects PCAST's Fresh Look

WASHINGTON - Life scientists on the President's Council of Advisers for Science and Technology won their first skirmish last month in an ongoing campaign to prod PCAST into the 1990s. The issue that arose during the council's second public meeting was the question of whether PCAST should create its own advisory group on biotechnology. Presidential science adviser Allan Bromley, who also is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, asked the council whether it wanted to form such a group after it had heard associate director James Wyn-gaarden outline the growing importance of biotechnology in the national research effort. PCAST has already agreed to set up similar groups of outside experts in high-performance computing, and it is planning other panels on such topics as materials science and science and mathematics education. PCAST voted yes despite comments from Bromley that it would "use up our most precious resource, your time" and the view of PCAST member David Packard and others that it might be better to "monitor" the work already being done by other federal advisory groups. But proponents of the new panel argued that biotechnology should be a priority for the administration. And they see their vote as giving belated recognition to the importance of the field, as well as being a welcome shift away from the dominant role played by national security issues in past debates about science policy. "Biotechnology has never been on the president's agenda before," notes PCAST member Bernadine Healy, a cardiologist and chairman of the Research Institute at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. "In the past it was always considered to be a subissue that could be handled at a lower level. But with economic issues replacing military issues at the core of our concern over national security, biotechnology is one of the few high-tech areas where we still hold a commanding lead." Healy, who in the mid-1980s served as associate director for life sciences in the Office of Science and Technology Policy, believes that PCAST's decision to give greater prominence to biotechnology reflects the diverse backgrounds of council members. "It wouldn't have happened in the past," she says, referring to its predecessor, the White House Science Council. "Those groups were dominated by defense scientists, and they had different priorities." Putting aside the political significance of the decision, there will be no shortage of tough issues for the new advisory group to address. Last fall the Competitiveness Council, chaired by Vice President Dan Quayle, formed a Working Group on Biotechnology. Wyngaarden, as chairman of the working group, put together three panels to look at the scientific, regulatory, and financial problems facing the industry. Although those panels are months away from issuing a report, Wyngaarden summarized for PCAST the major issues that they have been discussing. "These issues won't be a surprise to any of you at this table," he began. Among them, he said, are the importance of federal funding in nurturing this fledgling industry, the problems of scaling up for production the discoveries from the laboratory, the need for more technicians and engineers, the crucial need for continued animal experimentation in the face of opposition from animal welfare activists, the need to strengthen the ties between federal scientists and biotech companies, and the impact on the industry of federal laws relating to capital gains tax and business losses. In fact, the length of that list was cited as one reason that a panel of outside experts is needed. "I realize that there is already a lot going on, so the question for us is whether we can make a useful contribution," said Daniel Nathans of Johns Hopkins. "But I don't see how we can treat this topic with benign neglect. It's much too important for that."

Formation Of Biotech Panel Reflects PCAST's Fresh Look

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of