¹ Schmeck, Harold, “DNA Pioneer to Tackle Biggest Gene Project Ever,” New York Times, 10 4, 1988, pp. C1, C6.Google Scholar

² Roberts, Leslie, “Genome Project Gets Underway at Last,” Science, vol. 243 (January 13, 1989), pp. 167–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ National Research Council, Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988).Google Scholar

⁴ Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Mapping Our Genes: Genome Projects—How Big? How Fast? OTA-BA-373 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).Google Scholar

⁵ Murray, Tom, “Testimony,” OTA Report on the Human Genome Project Hearing, One Hundredth Congress, Second Session, Serial No. 100–123 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988), pp. 52–74.Google Scholar

⁶ The Department of Energy's interest in the Human Genome Project stems from its own research efforts to develop tools for measuring the biological effects of low levels of radiation in the environment. For a detailed political history of the DOE's involvement in the genesis of the Human Genome Project, see Cook-Deegan, Robert, The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome (New York: W. W. Norton, 1994).Google Scholar

⁷ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Energy, Understanding Our Genetic Inheritance: The U.S. Human Genome Project—The First Five Years, NIH Publication No. 90–1590 (Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1989).Google Scholar

⁸ Larson, Edward J., “Half a Tithe for Ethics,” National Forum: Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Spring 1993, pp. 15–17.Google Scholar

⁹ Juengst, Eric, “Human Genome Research and the Public Interest: Progress Notes on an American Science Policy Experiment,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 54 (1994), pp. 121–28.Google ScholarPubMed

¹⁰ Personal communication, NIH Institute Directors' Briefing on the NCHGR, June 15, 1990.

¹¹ Hubbard, Ruth and Wald, Elijah, Exploding the Gene Myth (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993), p. 159.Google Scholar

¹² After the development of the first effective technique for recombining isolated pieces of DNA, discussion within molecular biology of the possible “biohazards” involved in performing this “genetic engineering” between species yielded a self-imposed moratorium on this research. In the wake of this moratorium, a wider public reaction occurred, leading eventually to the establishment of a public federal review process for all “recombinant DNA” research. For the history of this episode, see Krimsky, Sheldon, Genetic Alchemy: The Social History of the Recombinant DNA Controversy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982).Google Scholar

¹³ Beckwith, Jonathan, personal communication, 02 11, 1990.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cook-Deegan, , The Gene Wars (supra note 6).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Watson, James, “The Human Genome Project: Past, Present, and Future,” Science, vol. 248 (1990), pp. 44–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

¹⁶ Watson, James and Juengst, Eric, “Doing Science in the Real World: The Role of Ethics, Law, and the Social Sciences in the Human Genome Project,” in Annas, George and Elias, Sherman, eds., Gene Mapping: Using Law and Ethics as Guides (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. xv–xviii.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Wilfond, Benjamin and Nolan, Kathleen, “National Policy Development for the Clinical Application of Genetic Diagnostic Technologies,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 270 (1993), pp. 2948–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

¹⁸ Annas, George and Elias, Sherman, “Social Policy Research Priorities for the Human Genome Project,”Google Scholar in Annas, and Elias, , eds., Gene Mapping, p. 275.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Collins, F. S., “Medical and Ethical Consequences of the Human Genome Project,” Journal of Clinical Ethics, vol. 2 (1991), pp. 260–67Google ScholarPubMed; Botkin, J. R., “Ethical Issues in Human Genetic Technology,” Pediatrician, vol. 17 (1990), pp. 100–107.Google ScholarPubMed

²⁰ Watson, and Juengst, , “Doing Science in the Real World,” p. xvi.Google Scholar

²¹ Guyatt, George et al. , “The Role of Before-After Studies of Therapeutic Impact in the Evaluation of Diagnostic Technologies,” Journal of Chronic Disabilities, vol. 39 (1986), pp. 295–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

²² Maddox, John, “New Genetics Means No New Ethics,” Nature, vol. 364 (1993), p. 97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

²³ NIH-DOE Working Group on Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genome Research, Genetic Information and Health Insurance: Report of the Task Force on Genetic Information and Insurance (Bethesda, MD: National Center for Human Genome Research, 1993), p. 19.Google Scholar

²⁴ Murray, Thomas, “Speaking Unsmooth Things about the Human Genome Project,”Google Scholar in Annas, and Elias, , eds., Gene Mapping, p. 247.Google Scholar

²⁵ Juengst, Eric and Watson, James, “Human Genome Research and the Responsible Use of New Genetic Knowledge,” International Journal of Bioethics, vol. 2 (1991), pp. 99–102.Google ScholarPubMed

²⁶ Bulger, Ruth, Bobby, Elizabeth, and Fineberg, Harvey, eds., Society's Choices: Social and Ethical Decision-making in Biomedicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995), p. 179.Google Scholar

²⁷ Singer, Eleanor, “Public Attitudes towards Genetic Testing,” Population Research Policy Review, vol. 10 (1991), pp. 235–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ Juengst, Eric, “Patterns of Reasoning in Medical Genetics: An Introduction,” Theoretical Medicine, vol. 10 (1989), pp. 101–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁹ Holtzman, Neil A., Proceed with Caution: Predicting Genetic Risks in the Recombinant DNA Era (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

³⁰ Fox-Keller, Evelyn, “Genetics, Reductionism, and Normative Uses of Biological Information,” Southern California Law Review, vol. 65 (1991), pp. 285–91Google Scholar; Brock, Daniel, “The Human Genome Project and Human Identity,” Houston Law Review, vol. 29 (1992), pp. 19–21Google Scholar; Kenen, R. H. and Schmidt, R. M., “Stigmatization of Carrier Status: Social Implications of Heterozygote Genetic Screening Programs,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 49 (1978), pp. 116–20.Google Scholar

³¹ Nelkin, Dorothy and Tancredi, Laurence, Dangerous Diagnostics: The Social Power of Biological Information (New York: Basic Books, 1989).Google Scholar

³² Reilly, Philip, The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

³³ Duster, Troy, Backdoor to Eugenics (New York: Routledge, 1990).Google Scholar

³⁴ Capron, Alexander M. et al. , eds., Genetic Counseling: Facts, Values, and Norms (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1979).Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf. Weir, Robert, “Why Fund ELSI Projects?” in Weir, Robert, Lawrence, Susan, and Fales, Evan, eds., Genes and Human Self-Knowledge (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1994), pp. 189–95.Google Scholar

³⁶ National Center for Human Genome Research, “Program Announcement: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genome Research,” NIH Guide to Contracts and Grants, vol. 19, no. 4 (1990), pp. 23–26.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Marshall, John, “Violence Research: NIH Told to Reconsider Crime Meeting,” Science, vol. 262 (1993), pp. 23–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

³⁸ See, e.g., Hilgartner, Stephen, “The Human Genome Project,” in Peterson, James et al. , eds., Handbook on Science, Technology, and Society (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992), pp. 1–32.Google Scholar

³⁹ Nelkin, Dorothy, “Promotional Metaphors and Their Popular Appeal,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 3 (1994), pp. 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁰ Kay, Lily, “Who Wrote the Book of Life? Information and the Transformation of Molecular Biology,” in Hagner, Michael and Rheinberger, Hans, eds., Experimentalsysteme in den Biologische-Medizinschen Wissenshaften: Objekt, Differenzen, Konjunkturen (Berlin: Academie Verlag, 1994).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Tauber, Alfred and Sarkar, Sahotra, “The Human Genome Initiative: Has Blind Reductionism Gone Too Far?” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 35 (1992), pp. 220–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² Cf. Duster, , Backdoor to Eugenics, pp. 58–63.Google Scholar

⁴³ Engineers make up a large cohort of “genome scientists,” if not by professional affiliation then by personal inclination. The Human Genome Project, after all, describes itself as a “toolmaking” effort, and approaches its task accordingly.

⁴⁴ Roberts, Leslie, “Taking Stock of the Genome Project,” Science, vol. 262 (1993), p. 22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁴⁵ American Society for Human Genetics (ASHG), “Statement of the American Society for Human Genetics on Cystic Fibrosis Carrier Screening,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 51 (1992), pp. 1443–44.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Wilker, Nachama et al. , “DNA Data Banking and the Public Interest,” in Billings, Paul, ed., DNA on Trial: Genetic Identification and Criminal Justice (Plainview, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1992), pp. 141–51.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ National Institutes of Health-Department of Energy (NIH-DOE) Joint Working Group on Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genome Research, “Genetic Discrimination and the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Human Genome News, vol. 3, no. 3 (1991), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Weiss, Rick, “Gene Discrimination Barred in Workplace,” Washington Post, 04 7, 1995, p. A3.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ NIH-DOE Joint Working Group, “Genetic Discrimination and the Americans with Disabilities Act,” p. 2.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Healy, Bernadine, “Testimony on the possible uses and misuses of genetic information,” Human Gene Therapy, vol. 3 (1992), pp. 51–56.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, Designing Genetic Information Policy: The Need for an Independent Policy Review of the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of the Human Genome Project (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992).Google Scholar

⁵² It could have also pointed out that, in the eyes of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the ELSI Working Group does not even exist between its meetings: strictly speaking, it is reconstituted for each meeting as a new “working group.”

⁵³ Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Biomedical Ethics in U.S. Public Policy—Background Paper, OTA-BP-BBS-105 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 06 1993), p. 8.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Hanna, Kathi E., “The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program of the National Center for Human Genome Research: A Missed Opportunity?”Google Scholar in Bulger, , Bobby, , and Fineberg, , eds., Society's Choices (supra note 26), pp. 432–58.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The same amount that went to one genome researcher, Eric Lander, that year alone—just to keep things in perspective!

⁵⁶ Cf. Biesecker, Barbara et al. , “Genetic Counseling for Families with Inherited Susceptibility to Breast and Ovarian Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 269 (1993), pp. 1970–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁵⁷ NIH-DOE Joint Working Group on the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genome Research, “Mission Statement,” 12 1, 1994.

⁵⁸ NIH-DOE Joint Working Group on Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues, Five Year Planning Summary (Bethesda, MD: NIH, 04 15, 1993).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cf. Levine, Robert, The Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research (New York: Urban and Schwartzenberg, 1986).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Li, Fred et al. , “Recommendations on Predictive Testing for Germ-Line P53 Mutations among Cancer-Prone Individuals,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 84 (1992), pp. 1156–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁶¹ Office of Protection from Research Risk, Protecting Human Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook (Bethesda, MD: OPRR, NIH, DHHS, 1993).Google Scholar

⁶² Alliance of Genetic Support Groups, Informed Consent: Participation in Genetic Research Studies (Chevy Chase, MD: Alliance of Genetic Support Groups, 1993).Google Scholar

⁶³ Powers, Madison, “Publication-Related Risks to Privacy: Ethical Implications of Pedigree Studies,” IRB, vol. 15 (1993), pp. 7–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, “Altering Data for Publication,” Statement to the Office of Protection from Research Risk, December 14, 1994.

⁶⁴ Clayton, Ellen et al. , “Informed Consent for Genetic Research on Stored Tissue Samples,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 274 (12 13, 1995), pp. 1786–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁶⁵ American College of Medical Genetics, “Statement on Storage and Use of Genetic Materials,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 57 (1995), pp. 1499–1501.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Locke, Margaret, “Interrogating the Human Genome Diversity Project,” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 39 (1994), pp. 603–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁷ Collins, Francis, “Statement on the Human Genome Diversity Project,”Google Scholar Senate Committee on Government Affairs, Hearings on the Human Genome Diversity Project, April 26, 1993.

⁶⁸ For a history of the country's other efforts at national bioethical commissions, see Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Biomedical Ethics in U.S. Public PolicyGoogle Scholar (supra note 53), Appendix A.

⁶⁹ The National Center for Human Genome Research has already been approached, for example, by representatives of the planned “Human Brain Project” at the National Institute of Mental Health about replicating an “ELSI” funding program within their efforts to compile and correlate all our knowledge of the brain.