ABSTRACT
In 1987,1 was hired as a congressional staff aide for the U.S. Sen ate Agriculture and Judiciary Committees to manage emerging issues surrounding agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech). The antifreeze bacterium, Pseudomonas syringae “Ice Minus” had just been released, bovine somatrotropin (bST) was approaching commercialization, and the Senate was convening hearings to discuss scientific and legal impediments to agbiotech. During my first week on the job, I was flown to the headquarters of a major biotechnology company and briefed on the remarkable science that the company was developing. It was explained that the technology would help to feed the world while simultaneously reducing environmental degradation associated with conventional production methods. The industry lobbyists worked diligently to ensure that I understood that biotech is the great elixir that would not only end starvation, but also cure cancer and infuse great wealth into the American economy. However, they did raise a caution and urged my cooperation. Biotech would only succeed if the government did not overreact to unscientific alarmists who were us ing rhetorical powers and subversive tactics against the industry. From the onset of my Senate career, industry and government leaders alike advised me that if biotech were to fulfill its promise, the appro priate roles for the government Were to (1) recognize that biotech is not remarkably different from conventional breeding and to regulate it accordingly; (2) invest in biotech research and education and remove
disincentives to commercialization; and (3) provide adequate prop erty rights to reward and encourage invention. Then and now, these three principles undergird American biotech policy.
