Abstract
In the wake of controversy over human embryonic gene-editing with CRISPR/Cas9 technology, scientists and commentators have looked repeatedly to the 1975 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA (rDNA) as a model for adjudicating gene-editing today. STS scholars, however, have long critiqued Asilomar as a case of insular scientific self-regulation. Looking beyond Asilomar, other histories from the early biotech years offer fresh insights for those working to create a socially responsible biotechnological practice today. Some of the first scientists to approach genetic engineering with a deep understanding of power and social equity were the biologists in the radical movement Science for the People (SftP). In 1976, SftP learned that Harvard University was planning to build a high-containment facility for rDNA research on its Cambridge campus, and fostered a unique moment of democratic technoscientific governance in their community. The organization's radical framework for understanding and regulating rDNA differed from Asilomar's liberal approach in important ways. While their colleagues at Asilomar ignored the social consequences of rDNA, SftP biologists produced incisive analyses of genetic reductionism, the commercialization of biotechnology, and the public regulation of science-and shared their ideas widely. Along the way, they fostered intellectual connections with an early community of radical and feminist science studies scholars who were investigating emerging issues around genetic engineering. As such, SftP's history offers a sharper understanding of how radical scientists engaged with early STS scholars, as well as profound insights for those who are pursuing an equitable gene-editing landscape in the CRISPR era.