Volume CXXXIII, Number 2 September 14, 2001 f

Bowdoin science writer tackles tough biology issues
ANJALI DOTSON
Staff Writer

Giving one of the few science-related Common Hour talks in recent years, Marcia Barinaga '77 spoke September 7 on the numerous ethical issues concerning the sciences today.

Barinaga centered her Common Hour talk not on the profession of science journalism, but rather on the evolution of science both in the public eye and behind the bench.

Marcia Barinaga '77, correspondent for Science, listens to a question at last week's Common Hour. (Karsten Moran, Bowdoin Orient)

As an undergraduate at Bowdoin interested in the sciences in the mid '70s, it was apparent to Barinaga that many of her classmates did not share her curiosity on the subject.

"I learned a lot about expressionist art and the political philosophy of Hobbes and Rousseau around the dinner table, but the exchange was not reciprocal," Barinaga said.

A Bowdoin graduate with a double major in biochemistry and environmental studies, Barinaga went on to graduate school at the University of California-San Diego where she received a Ph.D. in biology. Shelater completed work at Stanford as a post doctorate, in the area of molecular neurobiology.

Barinaga adopted an interest in science journalism and underwent training at the University of California Santa Cruz. Since then, she has been working as a correspondent for a number of science magazines, including Nature, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Dallas Morning News, and her current focus, Science.

As a science journalist who also has experience in research, Barinaga has deep insight into the communication and interactions between scientists and non-scientists; she emphasized the importance of being informed on scientific issues affecting society and encouraged rational discussion between the two multitudes.

"Science and, in particular, biology is in the public spotlight today more than ever and one reason is because the research is going so well. It's producing results and products that have an impact on society," Barinaga said.

On the subject of gene therapy, Barinaga brought up the case of 18-year-old Jessie Gelsinger, who was suffering from a milder version of a genetic disease that impaired his body's ability to remove ammonia from blood. In September 1999, Gelsinger volunteered for a new gene therapy treatment aimed at patients with a much more severe case of the disease. He died from a massive immune attack, a complication that had been noted in early animal testing of the drug.

"This incident and others like it gave the public reason to doubt and mistrust their word and that slowed down a line of research that I think does have great potential for society," Barinaga said.

Genetically engineered food, another hot topic, is generating concerns such as the potential for these crops to develop a resistance to herbicides, as well as the possibility of interbreeding with surrounding vegetation.

Barinaga pointed out many positive arguments for the genetic modification of crops including the removal of allergens from particular foods, such as peanuts, and the incorporation of immunizations in foods such as potatoes.

According to Barinaga, as of March 2000, one-third of the US corn crop and one-half of the US cotton and soybean crops are already genetically modified. Yet people, especially those affected economically by the decision, are still very anxious about the introduction of more of these types of crops.

"This kind of emotionality associated with it really does a lot to block the potential for any rational debate," Barinaga said.

The final issue Barinaga raised in her talk is perhaps the most controversial and publicly debated one to date: stem cell research. As Barinaga explained, stem cells are pluripotent cells, that is, they can grow to differentiate into any cell in the body. It appears that these cells can only be derived from embryos, which would curtail much of the debate relating to the use of adult stem cells instead of embryonic cells.

With these three issues in the forefront of scientific debates, Barinaga reminded all that society has been in a position of doubt before regarding scientific advancements and technology.

"Some people are repelled today by the idea of foreign genes in their food or of using embryos for research in human cloning. But the generation before rejected putting animal genes in bacteria and before that, society was very leary of in vitro fertilization. Today in vitro fertilization is welcomed as a life-giving technology for infertile couples, and diabetics are injecting recombinant insulin…" Barinaga said.

She took note of the differences in both circumstance and purpose involved in each specific technology, but also admitted that the public may accept all these advances just as they have in the past.

"We shouldn't get to that point by default. We should get there by intelligent discussion," Barinaga said.

"Scientists need to be willing to discuss issues rationally with non-scientists and to refrain from donning that cloak of superiority…that paternalistic attitude. But it's also really important for everyone to have a basic level of scientific literacy if society is going to respond intelligently to new technologies."