1. There is, of course, another, smaller genome initiative nested within the Department of Energy. Its current projects, level offunding,and so on are not clear.
2. Gilbert, W. (1992) A vision of the grail, in The Code of Code: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project, Kevles, D. J. and Hood, L., eds., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 83–97.
3. Surely a winner in any contest would be a recent headline: “Doctors engineer embryos,” with the provocative subtitle, “Infertile couples can take `supermarket approach’ (The Tennessean, November 23, 1977, 13A)—announcing what many critics have long feared: ”embryos-to-order“ reported by physicians at New York City’s Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, one of whom, Mark Sauer, somewhat carried away by the moment, declared that ”it’s normal human nature“ to want to choose such made-to-order embryos, using a variety of eggs and sperm to make ”different pedigrees.“
4. Jonsen, A. R. (1994) Genetic testing, individual rights, and the common good, in Duties to Others, Theology and Medicine, vol. 4. Campbell, C. S. and Lustig, B. A., eds., Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp. 279–291.
5. Jonsen, A. R. (1994) Genetic testing, individual rights, and the common good, in Duties to Others, Theology and Medicine, vol. 4. Campbell, C. S. and Lustig, B. A., eds., Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London, p. 283.