SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 1970-79 591 



regulatory bill which had emerged from the Commerce Health Sub- 

 committee chaired by Representative Paul G. Rogers (Democrat of 

 Florida). 



CONSIDERING NEW LEGISLATION ON DNA 



On April 11, 1978, at 8:10 a.m., Thornton convened his subcom- 

 mittee for a one-day hearing on the bill which had been sequentially 

 referred. The central purpose of the bill was to extend the protective 

 guidelines established by NIH for federally funded research to all other 

 private DNA research in order that all inquiries would be conducted 

 under the same ground rules. Thornton observed that '"the most recent 

 scientific evidence indicates that the probable risk of recombinant 

 DNA research is much less than we once thought." He added that 

 "science advances much faster than the legislative process," which 

 he concluded was probably good for the country, because "had the 

 legislative process moved more rapidly a year ago it might well have 

 been a grave mistake." 



Another reason for the legislation was to "preempt" State and 

 local jurisdictions from passing anti-DNA bills which were more 

 restrictive than a moderate Federal law. Everybody had in mind a 

 tough DNA ordinance which had been enacted in Cambridge, Mass., 

 the home of Harvard and MIT. 



The Science Committee was under the legislative gun; under the 

 terms of the sequential referral of the Commerce Committee bill, a 

 deadline of April 21 was set for the Science Committee to report. The 

 committee hit the date right on the nose, only after a hectic period of 

 discussions and a stormy pair of markup meetings in both the sub- 

 committee and full committee. In Thornton's absence for the Arkansas 

 campaign, Fuqua shepherded the bill through both the subcommittee 

 and full committee. Hollenbeck successfully put through several 

 amendments to strengthen environmental protection provisions and 

 to require the analysis of science policy lessons learned as a result of 

 the DNA controversy. The most serious argument occurred over 

 McCormack's contention that "it sets a dangerous precedent for the 

 regulation of scientific research in the absence of conclusive, or even 

 demonstrated, significant danger." McCormack also wrote dissenting 

 views which objected to provisions of the bill which he said were 

 "an open invitation to frivolous, time-consuming, cruel lawsuits." 



In order to avoid any jurisdictional clashes with the Commerce 

 Committee, both Teague and Fuqua warned they would raise points 

 of order against any attempt to amend the bill in such a way as to 

 invade the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. As 

 Fuqua put it, he did not want any "major surgery or genetic en- 

 gineering" done on the bill. 



