A dangerous, wrong or unneeded experiment? Don’t do it

While making a BBC radio documentary together about the history of genetic engineering, one of us (R. P.) was reminded of an unsent letter to Nature and Science, drafted 50 years ago with molecular biologist Joe Sambrook, in response to the first proposed recombinant DNA experiment.

Four years later, in 1975, the Asilomar Conference — a meeting of biologists, lawyers and even physicians — rescinded a temporary moratorium on recombinant DNA research.

Amid today’s debates about heritable gene editing, viral gain-of-function research and embryo experiments beyond 14 days, these words from the letter resonate: “We ought to ask ourselves whether the experimental results are worth the calculable and unknown dangers to ourselves and to the general population … we are obliged to ask ourselves whether the experiment needs to be done, rather than if it ought to be done, or if it can be done.”

The letter by R. P. and Sambrook (now deceased) was never sent. As early-career researchers, they decided not to risk antagonizing senior colleagues who might be hostile to the idea of limiting research.

The letter concluded: “If it is dangerous, or wrong, or both, and if it doesn’t need to be done, we just ought not to do it.” Then, as now, what is the right experiment to do should not be determined by scientists alone.