The Michigan Daily
Vol. LXXXVI, No. 16-S
Ann Arbor, Michigan-Wednesday, May 26, 1976
Ten Cents
Twelve Pages
Oregon,
Church,
idaho go
Ford wins
to
Ky.
President leads tight
race in Tennessee
1y The Associated Press
Sen. Frank Church last night won, as expected, in
his home state of Idaho, but surprised the experts by
apparently upsetting former Georgia governor Jimmy
Carter in the important Oregon primary. Both CBS and
NBC projected Church as the winner in Oregon. Carter,
however, won landslide victories in Kentucky, Tennessee
and Arkansas. Caliornia Gov. Edmund "Jerry" Brown won
in Nevada.
In Republican action, President Ford won the Ken-
tucky presidential primary election and held a narrow
lead over Ronald Reagan in Tennessee. Reagan was the
victor in Nevada, Arkansas and Idaho, while the early
edge in Oregon belonged to Ford.
THAT WAS THE score on a six-election day, and it looked like
a boost for Ford, who had been braced for defeats in at least
v foheir states.
SIn terms of Republican dele-
Sgates, theincomplete retins
} painted to a gain of 1110 farRena-
hgan, 76 for Ford. But the totals
' tf '$v catdd change -as the count of
pitlar votes is cinpleted.
di' Naionally, that wauld pat
Fard at 777 of the 1,130 dele-
gates he needs to win the Re-
publicananomination, Reagan at
644.
s rr, DEMfOCRATl Carte-r passed
the h lfway mark in his quest
for a nominating majority. But
.d r psychologically, it wasn't a good
day for the former Georgia gov-
AP Photo ernor. He won in his southern
neighborhood, but he trailed in
Victory Wthe three western primaries
where the stop-Carter effort was
IDAHO SEN. FRANK CHURCH waves to supporters at a rally in Boise, Idaho last night after concentrated.
learning that he was winning the Democratic presidential primary in his home state. See CARTER, Page 10
BULLETIN
Ford hasbeen named the
winner in the Tennessee pri-
mary.
Oregon
With 31uperdcent of the pre-
cincts- counted:
REPUBLICANS
Ford 53 per cent
Reagan 47 per cent
DEMOCRATS
Church 40 per cent
Carter 30 per cent
Brown 14 per cent
More results on Page 10
DNA issue: doubts remain
By MIKE NORTON
When the University Board of Regents
rated last week to give their approval to
recombinant DNA research here, a long
and burning controversy was finally laid
to rest. The roots of that disagreement,
which set scientists all over the nation
at each other's throats and prompted
furious argument here in Ann Arbor, go
back a long way.
Ever since biologists discovered that
dexoyribonuclejc acid (DNA) the chem-
ical substance which gives each living
thing its own peculiar qualities, could be
transferred intact from one organism to
another, there has been speculation and
discussion about the dangers inherent in
such experiments.
IN 1971, WHILE recombinant DNA re-
search was still in its early stages, some
experis began considering the possible
hazards of what is, essentially, the crea-
tion of completely new organisms through
chemical manipulation of genetic mate-
rial. If proper safety precautions were
not taken, they wondered, or if they were
somehow to fail, what would prevent a
dangerous-possibly fatal-strain of mu-
tant bacteria from escaping the labora-
tory and infecting the outside world?
The risks were especially apparent
when they considered that Escherichia
coli, the bacteria most suitable for the
experiments, was a hardy species which
ordinarily thrives in the human digestive
system. A mutant strain, research critics
pointed out, might be equally at home
within the human body.
Because of these early hesitations, a
conference of 160 scientists from all over
the world met at Asilomar, California,
in February of 1975 and called for a
moratorium on certain types of DNA
research until suitable safety guidelines
could be established. At the same time,
the National Institute of Health (NIH)
organized a committee to draw up such
a set of guidelines for the safe conduct
of the research.
HERE IN Ann Arbor, University Vice
President for Research Charles Over-
berger appointed a Microbiological Re-
search Hazards Committee, whose task
was much the same. The body, known
as the Folk Committee, reported to
Oiererger in April of 1975 and presented
a large, well-documented set of policy
and procedure directions. The report was
reviewed by the University's Biomedical
Research Council, which agreed with
most of its proposals.
As a result of the favorable reception
of the report, University officials began
the establishment of three committees
to study various aspects of recombinant
l)NA research.
Committee A, whose members were
appointed by Overberger and Medical
School Dean John Gronvall, was to in-
vestigate the necessary reconstruction
of certain laboratories-and the addition
of special containment facilities - for
"low-to-medium risk" research.
COMMITTEE C, whose membership
was to be appointed later, would review
the safety features of each facility regu-
larly to ensure that proper precautions
were being taken at all times.
Lastly, Committee B, composed of a
wide range of members of the University
community, would develop a general
University policy "and/or a review pro-
cess with respect to the social, ethical,
and legal aspects of research in recom-
binant DNA and related aspects of mole-
cular genetics."
But the real flare-up of emptions began
November of 1975, when University
SEE DNA, Page 6