330 



Dr. Salk's University of Pittsburgh, who could not appear at the hear- 

 ing. The other panelists did not want to commit themselves at this 

 point and continued the debate. 



Dr. Stanley of Walter Reed criticized the NFIP methods of publi- 

 cizing the report, saying that it did not advance scientific inquiry. 



This is the first time in history * * * when a scientific program has gone ahead 

 pretty much on the basis of not completely unpublished work ; but work which is 

 not readily available to scientists generally. 



He added that the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis had 

 tried to speed up the process by appointing a coimnittee to oversee re- 

 search and analysis, but that the procedure was faulty and should not 

 be repeated. 



I would hope that in the future that scientific accomplishments and discoveries 

 would be published and made available to all throughout the world for checking 

 and double checking * * *." 



The panelists then explored the merits of PHS testing procedures. 

 Dr. Shannon stated that improvement of such techniques was under 

 study. Dr. Salk said that currently used techniques were sufficiently 

 precise and did show the presence of dangerous live virus in the Cutter 

 vaccine lots. Other members of the panel withheld judgment on the 

 question either because they had not been provided with all necessary 

 information, or because they said, they were not qualified to answer.'^^ 



As the pressure for taking the vote mounted, Dr. Paul repeated that 

 both panelists and committee members would have to interpret the de- 

 cision made as one of calculated risk : 



* * * What we will be discussing and voting upon is a problem of calculated 

 risk. This problem comes to every clinician who treats sick patients a dozen times 

 a day. There are dangers in doing this, there is good in doing this ; there is no 

 arbitrary answer. It is a question of calculated risk.™ 



Chaimian Price told the committee and the panelists that the com- 

 mittee did not have the responsibility for making scientific decisions, 

 but that he wanted it made known that he expected the information 

 presented in the panel to help the PHS in solving many of the prob- 

 lems brought out m the discussion : 



This committee * * * has the responsibility to decide whether this legislation 

 should or should not be reported to the floor of the House. Of course, this decision 

 involves scientific questions relating to the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine 

 which is to be used * * *. 



I want to point out * * * this committee does not have the responsibility nor 

 could it ever hope to discharge the responsibility of determining what the mini- 

 mum requirements should be which the Public Health Service should insist upon 

 with regard to the manufacture of any particular vaccine. 



* * * The committee could not hope to decide whether the protein matter 

 remaining in the vaccine should be strained out by the manufacturers or can 

 safely remain in the vaccine. Nor could the committee decide * * * whether 

 individual phy.sicians should or should not give the vaccine to children * * *. 



Finally this committee does not have the responsibility of determining whether 

 any private organization should or should not go ahead with any program * * *. 



I am aware, of course, that the testimony which was presented here * * * will 

 no doubt have indirectly some effect on these other determinations which the 

 Public Health Service, individual physicians, private organizations, and * * * 

 the parents of this country will have to make.'" 



" Ibid., p. 178. 

 wibld., pp. 192-195. 

 '"Ibid., pp. 191-192. 

 s°Ibid., pp. 183-184. 



