In February 1975, at the historical Asilomar State Beach and Conference Grounds, California, about 150 scientists convened for what turned out to be a greatly significant, and historically important, meeting.
Here, the scientists, most of them molecular biologists, deliberated public concerns raised about potential hazards by the then new experiments involving recombinant DNA, commonly referred to as genetic engineering.
Exactly half a century later, in February 2025, over 300 of us returned to Asilomar for The Spirit of Asilomar and Future of Biotechnology summit. I was privileged to be among the few Africans that participated in deep conversations and fireside chats reflecting on a legendary conference that happened half a century ago.
History and science are truly intertwined. While scientific advancements shape historical narratives, science provides the methods and knowledge to understand historical events. This was the motivation behind the deliberations in Asilomar.
Notably, it was here, all those 50 years ago, that scientists working in genetic engineering research advocated for biosafety measures on all genetic engineering advancements. These biosafety measures remain but interpretations differ extensively depending on geo-politics, priorities and interests. To a great extent, this has also defined the speed at which innovations arising from genetic engineering research have transitioned to commercialization, with health applications widely accepted but those in agriculture still heavily contested.
Thus, the February 2025 summit, organized under the auspices of the Science History Institute, provided an opportunity not just to reconvene but, as the co-organizers called it, “to grapple with the past–aware of its accomplishments, limitations, and failures –so as to better engage with the issues of the present.”
I was lucky to meet several of those scientists, now septuagenarians and octogenarians, who shared a witness account of their fears and hopes about the potential of this science 50 years ago.
Five themes framed the 3-day deliberations: pathogens research and biological weapons; artificial intelligence (AI) and biotechnology; synthetic cells; biotechnologies beyond conventional containment; and framing biotechnology’s future.
I chaired the sub-theme on Communication and Community where we unpacked the question: What are the narratives that will shape biotechnology’s futures and who is communicating them? It emerged that technology developers, scientists, the media, idealists but less of beneficiaries, have shaped the current narratives around biotechnology. Equity, sustainability, local knowledge and geo-political differences were identified as key drivers to shape the biotechnology future where value-chain actors and consumers work together to build trust and credibility amid heightened misinformation and disinformation. The group asserted that end-users, policymakers, journalists, social media influencers and a community of science communicators will greatly shape future narratives of biotechnology.
While no predetermined or guaranteed outcomes were anticipated, intensifying science literacy and effective science communication, integration of developers and beneficiaries at every step of biotechnology development, and generating simpler languages to help make biotechnology more relatable to society were the three top actionable steps recommended under the sub-theme.
I then quickly jumped into the Bioeconomy working group that was unpacking the question: What will it take to reach equity in access and agency for shaping biotechnology between the global North and South? After intense consultations, global cooperation, equitable access and development, and responsive innovation emerged top for advancing a sustainable and inclusive bioeconomy. Above all, bioeconomy growth must properly value nature and biodiversity while integrating biotechnology’s transformative potential with ethical environmental stewardship.
In the room next-door was another exciting discussion under the Artificial Intelligence and Biotechnology frame and I could not resist joining in. I was awed by the sheer amount of progress that has been made in integrating AI in biotechnology. It was observed that various models have already been trained on natural DNA sequences. These can generate new sequences encoding potentially novel biological functions, enabling many positive biotechnology outcomes. What remains unclear, participants argued, are the governance options that would ensure equity, as well as the potential risks (if any) associated with such DNA sequences, since direct prior experience is still evolving. Clarity on who will develop, own, and control the next generation of biotech AI models and tools is thus paramount.
It was clear that progress in the next 50 years will be determined by strong governance structures, workforce re-skilling, infrastructural enhancement and risk-proportionate biosafety measures, taking into consideration the experiences gained over the last 50 years and a better quantification of actual benefits and opportunity costs of advancing genetic engineering. Increased transparency and inclusive stakeholder engagement are essential to ensuring confidence in biotechnology, its long-term success and closing the widening gap between developed and developing bio-economies.
The summit was not without light moments provided by the Pigeonwing troupe with their choreography of CRISPR dance emphasizing the diversity and inclusivity of the voices present from the arts to academia and humanities, government, journalists, industry and civil society from around the world, including Africa that was absent in the 1975 conference.
As we left Asilomar, I couldn’t help but ponder on the question put forward by co-organizing chair Louis Campos, a historian of science, “What will another generation, 50 years from now, in 2075, say about this 2025 Spirit of Asilomar summit?”. I paused to calculate and realized I will be a centenarian. Inclusion of sixty next-generation leaders in the summit was definitely a wise decision! Check out reflections of one of them on the Africa Science Dialogue platform.
Dr. Margaret Karembu, Ph.D., MBS, Director, ISAAA AfriCenter and Chair, Africa Science Dialogue