¹ Corning, Peter, Losco, Joseph and Wiegele, Thomas, “Political Science and the Life Sciences,” PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. XIV, No. 3 (Summer 1981): 590–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Caldwell, Lynton K., “Biopolitics: Science, Ethics and Public Policy,” Yale Review, Vol. LIV, No. 1 (October 1964): 1–15.Google Scholar

³ Wilson, E. O., Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975).Google Scholar

⁴ In addition to the Yale Review article, see, Caldwell, , “Biology and Bureaucracy: The Coming Confrontation,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan./Feb. 1980): 1–12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Survivalist Policies: Ecological-Environmental Factors,” paper delivered at APSA Convention, New York, September, 1981; “The Irrepressible Influence of Biology on Politics,” paper delivered at the APSA Convention, Chicago, September, 1983; also “Biocracy and Democracy: Science, Ethics, and the Law,” paper delivered at the APSA Convention, Washington, D.C., September, 1984 and forthcoming in Politics and the Life Sciences.

⁵ Caldwell, , “International Aspects of Biotechnology,” paper delivered at Southern Political Science Association meeting, Birmingham, Ala., November 5, 1983.Google Scholar Zilinskas, Raymond and his commentators, in “New Biotechnology: Potential Problems Likely Promises,” with Commentaries, Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 1 (August 1983): 46–73 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, discuss the international dimensions of biotechnology. Also see Lukoff, Sanford, “Biotechnology and the Developing Countries,” and accompanying Commentaries, Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 2 (February 1984): 151–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Blank, Robert, “Biopolicy: A Restatement of Its Role in Politics and the Life Sciences,” Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1: 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar His two books on biotechnologies, The Political Implications of Human Genetic Technology (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1981), and Redefining Human Life: Reproductive Technologies and Social Policy (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1984), also highlight the need for consistent public policy. Zilinskas, op. cit.

⁷ Mark Rushevsky, “Assuming the Conclusions: Risk Assessment in the Development of Cancer Policy,” forthcoming in Politics and the Life Sciences. “Risk Assessment/Risk Management,” The Environmental Forum, Vol. 3, No. 5 (September 1984): 17–32, points to some of the same problems.

⁸ “OMB Challenges Plan to Regulate Biotechnology,” Science, Vol. 224, No. 4648 (May 4, 1984): 472; and a letter from Rep. Gore, Albert, “Regulation of Biotechnology,” Science, Vol. 225, No. 4657 (July 6, 1984): 6 and 8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Also reported in Inside EPA, Vol. 5, No. 46 (November 16, 1984): 1, 9; Inside the Administration, April 6, 1984; and November 16, 1984. The Office of Technology Assessment's report, “Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis,” emphasizes the importance of this emerging industry, and the need to maintain our competitive advantage.

⁹ EPA is “looking to regulate with a light hand,” according to the Director of EPA's Office of Toxic Substances, quoted in “Biotechnology's Regulatory Triangle,” Science, Vol. 225, No. 4663 (August 17, 1983): 697.Google Scholar Also see “Government Readies Rules for Biotechnology Control,” Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN), Vol. 62, No. 33 (August 13, 1984): 34–38; also, letter from Rep. Albert Gore, op. cit., and “Biotech Group Defines Future Business Hurdles,” C&EN, Vol. 62, No. 44 (October 29, 1984): 6. As Chairman at Du Pont's Life Sciences Dedication Symposium Dinner, E. G. Jefferson endorsed the need for regulation of industrial applications to avoid uncertainty; speech delivered in Wilmington, Delaware, September 12, 1984.

¹⁰ “Cabinet Weighs Giving Biotechnology Panel to White House Science Office,” Inside EPA, Vol. 5, No. 47 (November 23, 1984): 5.

¹¹ Monsanto is planning to skip RAC, and go straight to EPA with a test microbial pesticide for corn; “Biotechnology's Regulatory Triangle,” Science, op. cit.

¹² Zilinskas notes that, “in some cases it is difficult to differentiate between basic research and its applications.” The character of bio-technical research and development differs from other technologies, which raises both possibilities and difficulties, op. cit.: 45–46. E. G. Jefferson of Du Pont said that it is necessary to distinguish “between the control of science and the regulation of industrial products and technology.”

¹³ The past six months of C&EN gives an idea of the amount of money companies are committing to commercial planning and marketing. Government funding has been and continues to be a major factor.

¹⁴ “Attack on the Gene Splicers,” Discover, August 1984: 19–25, takes a position that scientists regulate themselves adequately. They cite a USC biochemist (p. 25): “Recombinant DNA technology is a tool, no more moral or immoral than electricity, fire or the hammer.”

¹⁵ The Congressional Research Service explored some of these possibilities in an Issue Brief (#IB81160), “Biotechnology: Commercialization of Academic Research,” Jan. 20, 1984.

¹⁶ “House Committee Sets Agenda for Huge Science Policy Study,” C&EN, Vol. 62, No. 43 (October 22, 1984): 16–19.

¹⁷ “Letter from John D. Dingell, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to The Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator, EPA, August 3, 1984.