A reflection on Dr. Katie Barnhill’s GES Colloquium talk about the 2025 Spirit of Asilomar and the Future of Biotechnology Summit, and how it revisits the legacy of scientific self-regulation sparked by the original 1975 conference.

Written by: Surabhi Metpally

*Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors as individuals and should not be taken as a reflection of the views of the whole of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center or NC State University.

Asilomar Conference biologists Maxine Singer, Norton Zinder, Sydney Brenner, and Paul Berg at Asilomar in 1975. Source: Album/Alamy via Nature

Dr. Katie Barnhill reflects on this event from a modern perspective, asking whether the mindset from Asilomar is still shaping how we think about biotechnology today. She explains that while Asilomar focused narrowly on technical safety, it left out deeper concerns like ethics, long-term social impacts, and especially, biowarfare. Even participants like David Baltimore, who helped organize the 1975 event, later admitted the conference had an “unfinished agenda.” That makes me think about how often major scientific decisions happen behind closed doors, and what’s missing when that happens.

The way Dr. Barnhill frames current biotechnology issues shows how far the field has moved and how some of the old blind spots remain. Today, we’re dealing with synthetic cells, AI-biotech integrations, and pathogen research that’s hard to contain in a traditional sense. These developments raise questions that go way beyond lab safety. Who gets to decide which technologies are worth pursuing? Who’s at the table when we talk about risks and benefits? Barnhill’s work emphasizes creating inclusive spaces for public engagement, especially with communities that might be directly affected.

This talk made me think about how the Asilomar mindset, focused on expert self-regulation, still lingers in how we handle emerging technologies. It makes me wonder how often we’re repeating the same patterns: trusting that technical people will sort things out, without fully engaging the ethical, social, and political dimensions. In a world where biotech could impact ecosystems, food systems, or even geopolitical stability, the stakes feel higher than ever.

It also reminded me of how I’ve seen this kind of narrow framing in technology more broadly. For example, in AI development, teams often focus on performance and accuracy while leaving out questions about fairness, surveillance, or labor. Barnhill’s emphasis on justice-oriented decision-making feels like a necessary shift, not just in biotechnology, but across all areas where science and technology shape people’s lives. Overall, the seminar was a powerful reminder that it’s not enough to manage risk. We also have to think about power, equity, and inclusion.

The “spirit of Asilomar” may have helped jumpstart modern biotech, but it also left behind important conversations that still need to happen. And this time, they need to involve more than just scientists.

Surabhi Metpally is an undergraduate student at NC State University studying Business Administration with a concentration in Information Technology. She works at the Center for Human Health and the Environment (CHHE) at NC State. She can be reached at smetpal@ncsu.edu.