Public Distrust of Science Made Cambridge the Biotech Capital of the World

The specter of submitting their work to public examination can be scary to researchers in controversial fields like biotechnology and nanotechnology. They worry that scientific illiteracy and fearmongering will hijack any meaningful dialogue. But as the history of Cambridge, Massachusetts shows, involving the public can actually improve science.

Back in the 1970's, when scientists refined techniques of DNA manipulation, a lot of people worried that bench-altered bugs would escape labs and infect people. (It wasn't just the untrained public who feared this, but quite a few scientists, too.)

In Cambridge -- location of Harvard, MIT and other renowned research universities -- a national debate became local. Harvard proposed turning a nearby lab into a high-security facility for potentially dangerous research; Harvard faculty and members of the public declared their alarm, arguing that a decision that could affect the entire community deserved to be made by the community; and the city held public hearings.

The hearings, which were covered nationally, were dramatic, sometimes bitter showcases of two opposing beliefs about the public's right to guide research. Eventually they produced biotech research regulations
-- involving worker safety, transparency, and lab inspections -- that were overseen and enforced by the Cambridge Public Health Department.
And, lo and behold, Cambridge grew into a global capital of biotech research.

I edited an article on this a few years ago, when I worked for the
Council for Responsible Genetics. It's a little dry, but quite instructive....

When asked why they would choose to locate their research and development headquarters in a city with an rDNA ordinance, an oversight committee, and a history of deep suspicion — even animosity — towards genetic engineering research, Biogen officials replied that Cambridge’s established review and regulatory process, and the more mature understanding of the field, were in fact part of the community’s appeal
. A process that was once seen as an obstacle to academic freedom and commercial enterprise engendered an assurance of cooperation and a tacit acknowledgement that such constraints represented reasonable and prudent local governance. What began as an electrifying display of resistance by an energized population became a demonstration of the power of public oversight and private disclosure to benefit all the parties.

The Cambridge Model of Biotech Oversight [GeneWatch]
*
Image: Fredrick Onyango*