The paper was written very early in the development of the technology. Literally, what we did was look at genetic transformation using this technique, in microbes, plants, and animals. The message is the broad application of the technology to gene transfer.

  What do you think gave the paper such impact?

I have a hard time answering that question, because it was so unexpected. I didn't even plan on writing the paper. I was giving a talk in Copenhagen, and one of the editors asked me if I would write an article based on the work I was doing. I decided I would bring in a few of my colleagues and we could write on the whole field as opposed to just one aspect of the technology. Part of it may be—and I'm just guessing at this point—that it is highly cited because it talked about using the technique for specific plants, in particular, in the transformation of corn and soybean, which are fairly high-value crops. And, as you know, genetically modified crops are considered controversial because of the question of what they might be doing to the environment. So that plays a part. How would they influence other plants out there? Would they cause problems in terms of transfer of DNA to other organisms, for example? So there is a fear of the unknown that plays into this.

  How has this field evolved since you wrote your paper?

The field has gone off in very different directions. Some research has led to improvement of the technique and the use of different types of genes. And now that they're doing a lot more sequencing, it becomes possible to put particular gene sequences into various kinds of plants. But I am not a real plant expert; my novel concept was simply using the technology in live animals for genetic immunization, gene transfer, and gene therapy.

  Have you followed that work closely since you wrote the paper?

Not closely. I have changed fields since then and this work is no longer my focus. But the work has been continuing, although it still has a long way to go to make it useful.

  What was the greatest obstacle to pursuing this research?

There were many obstacles. Mostly, though, it was the fear of going forward with the work because it was considered so controversial. DuPont is a very conservative company, and I remember that the idea of transforming cells, particularly in live animals, was considered too much potential liability to get involved. As a result, they licensed the technology out as soon as another company came along that wanted to license it. That's why I really got out of the research so early. In a nutshell, it was just so new that it was very difficult to get acceptance, even inside the company.

  Were there any particularly trying or difficult moments that stick in your memory?

Yes, many. Although I remember one in particular. One of the vice presidents had talked to some of the molecular biologists within DuPont, and they had stated that the technique wouldn't work. We would not be able to get transformation of cells within animal skin, because of all the possible things that could go wrong. Fortunately, we had already proved that we could transform live animal skin cells by that time, but we still had to listen to all these reasons why it wouldn't work.

  What do you see in the future for the kind of genetic immunization technology that you discussed in this paper?

If it does work, the major use that I see is in being able to immunize with the conserved region of, say, the AIDS virus. As you know, the virus mutates rapidly and so if you could use the conserved region of one of its proteins, you could immunize with this technology and reduce the risk of getting the disease from the virus itself. However, there are still major limits at this point as to the length of DNA you can use.

  And what are you doing now that you're well out of this business?

I have started a new company called Bio.enterprise. It's involved in helping start-up companies and new technologies develop in various areas of biotechnology and life sciences. Our services include: funding strategies, technology development, technology assessment, product development, marketing research, and patent strategies. We have worked with companies in nutraceuticals, non-invasive drug delivery and sensor devices, drug discovery, vaccines, and plants genetically modified to produce drugs. What I’m doing now is working with life science incubators to start new businesses from technologies developed within universities and as spin-offs from large companies.

Sandra McElligott, Ph.D.
Bio.enterprise LLC
Port-of-Technology/University City Science Center
Philadelphia, PA, USA