At a catered conference banquet Saturday night on MIT's campus, representatives of the biotechnology industry mingled with prominent Harvard professors including Professor of Medicine Warner V. Slack and Professor of Science and Public Policy Sheila S. Jasanoff.

Later, Jasanoff spoke on the perception that law lags behind the development of science and technology.

But this was no ordinary professional conference. Entirely student-run, it nevertheless attracted top researchers, academics and journalists who work in biomedicine and biotechnology. The audience was comprised mostly of undergraduates from Harvard and MIT.

Conference speakers, who included Nature editor-in-chief Phillip Campbell and Thomas Professor of Surgery Fritz H. Bach '55-'56 said they were attracted to the conference because of the opportunity to interact with Harvard and MIT undergraduates and because of the provocative topics on the agenda.

"I just love these conferences," said Bach. "I think they're superb because they don't mind bringing up contentious issues."

Indeed, during the panel discussion on the ethical and social implications of biotechnology, students in the audience put the panelists to sharp questioning about the implications of genetic modification of humans and the role the biotechnology industry plays in suppressing or pushing research.

Sheldon Krimsky, professor of urban and environmental policy at Tufts University, criticized the way companies can patent genes even without a clear understanding of their function.

"I've been a critic of the current patent rules because they don't seem to serve the public interest," he said.

Although the questioners were often antagonistic, the panelists and the conference organizers took the intense discussions in stride.

"I don't necessarily agree with the hostility but that's almost what's important about the conference," said conference director Praveen R. Shanbhag '02. "The contention is almost the heart of what we're trying to foster."

Clones, Patents, Ethics

Among the hot topics at the conference was the recent announcement by a research group in Italy last week that they would attempt to clone humans.

Conference speakers disagreed sharply whether the technology is ready for human cloning and whether such as move is ethical.

"It is egregiously bad that they want to do this," said Washington Post biotechnology reporter Justin Gillis. "It is not safe to do. It is absolutely immoral."

Others were not so sure cloning represents an unalloyed evil.

"I'm not thrilled about cloning humans but I'm not so concerned as other people are," Bach said.

Bach said he is more concerned about technologies such as xenotransplantation, which could put society at risk because of the possibility of viruses being transferred from transplanted animal organs into humans.

According to Lee M. Silver, a professor of molecular biology at Princeton, the capability to clone and genetically engineer humans is closer ever.

"This is more a political question than a scientific question. Scientists have never retained control of what they discover," he said.

However, some speakers said politicians have not stepped up to the plate to address some of these pressing issues on corporate versus public rights.

Jonathan King, professor of molecular biology at MIT, said that although leaders in Europe have begun to discuss issues of patenting genes, the United States has not.

"Congress has avoided any hearings on these issues," he said.

He also disputed the notion that patenting genes is required for continued biomedical research.

"The human genome should not be corporate property," he said.

According to Claudia Mickelson, chair of the National Institutes of Health Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, citizens should be aware of the evidence used in forming government policy.

"I feel very strongly that for there to be public trust in these technologies, we must have publicly accessible information," she said.

In his Sunday evening keynote address, Campbell echoed the idea that the public should have access to the research that informs scientific decision-making.

"It's the lack of accountability that people are most worried about, if you are accountable to investors and not to the public," he said.

New Technology

In addition to the political and scientific controversies at the conference, there was also much talk about the frontiers of biotechnology.

Langer, chair of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's highest advisory board, detailed his plans for the delivery of drugs to patients on synthetic chips. These chips will regulate the dosage of drugs better than is now possible with pills.

In addition, MIT professor Robert S. Langer is using polymers to advance many areas of medicine. He mentioned that polymer scaffolds could be used to aid the growth of skin in burn victims.

Besides growing skin, polymers can also help replace cartilage in certain parts of the body.

According to Jagmeet P. Singh, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, invasive surgery will become a rare form of treatment in the future because of genetic-based preventative medicine and improved non-invasive techniques.

Bach, an expert on the possibility of transplanting animal tissues into humans, spoke of the progress made in engineering pigs as potential donors of organs to humans.

An Uncommon Conference

According to Shanbhag, the conference, now in its fifth year, is unique in that it is student-run, yet attracts world-class speakers.

Conference organizers said there was no "trick" to attracting such speakers--they say many may have accepted because of the novelty of addressing an undergraduate-led and attended conference.

Campbell said he also accepted on the conference's merits.

"I thought it was an interesting topic and audience," he said. "This is my first undergraduate-run conference."

Although there were 500 pre-registrants, attendance at the events on Saturday and Sunday ranged from 250 to about 100 at times.

Speakers--and students--were generally positive on the event.

" I find it interesting," said Mimi Ledee '02. "They should have incorporated more interactive events."

Shanbhag said he was pleased with the way the conference went.

"Everything I heard from the speakers was positive," he said.

Moments after his keynote address, Campbell left for a flight back to London.

"I enjoyed [the speakers] a lot," he said. "They raised points I had not heard before."