It’s considered a scientific landmark: A 1975 meeting at the Asilomar Conference Center in Pacific Grove, California, shaped a new safety regime for recombinant DNA, ensuring that researchers would apply caution to gene splicing. Those ideas have been so useful that in the decades since, when new topics in scientific safety arise, there are still calls for Asilomar-type conferences to craft good ground rules.
There’s something missing from this narrative, though: It took more than the Asilomar conference to set today’s standards. The Asilomar concepts were created with academic research in mind — but the biotechnology industry also makes products, and standards for that were formulated after Asilomar.
“The Asilomar meeting and Asilomar principles did not settle the question of the safety of genetic engineering,” says MIT scholar Robin Scheffler, author of a newly published research paper on the subject.
Instead, as Scheffler documents in the paper, Asilomar helped generate further debate, but those industry principles were set down later in the 1970s — first in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where politicians and concerned citizens wanted local biotech firms to be good neighbors. In response, the city passed safety laws for the emerging industry. And rather than heading off to places with zero regulations, local firms — including a fledgling Biogen — stayed put. Over the decades, the Boston area became the world leader in biotech.
Why stay? In essence, regulations gave biotech firms the certainty they needed to grow — and build. Lenders and real-estate developers needed signals that long-term investment in labs and facilities made sense. Generally, as Scheffler notes, even though “the idea that regulations can be anchoring for business does not have a lot of pull” in economic theory, in this case, regulations did matter.
“The trajectory of the industry in Cambridge, including biotechnology companies deciding to accommodate regulation, is…