11 
(c) The possibility of the totally unexpected was not 
considered. That an organism containiiig chimeric DMA could 
possess properties exhbited by neither the host or the organism 
providing the source of the recombinant DKA has not been con- 
sidered. Yet, on page 27 of the impact statement, in discus- 
sing potential benefits of recombinant DNA research, it is 
stated, "It is important to stress that the most significant 
resu].ts of this \\7ork, as with any truly innovative endeavor, 
are likely to arise in unexpected v/ays and will almost certainly 
not follow a predictable path." This is indeed a fitting way 
to describe an endeavor as novel as recombinant DNA research 
— one cannot predict what will happen. Why, then should not 
a nearly identical statement be made concerning the potential 
hazards? Are we so wise that we can accurately imagine all of 
the possible undesirable effects but cannot, at the same tim.e 
see the constructive uses of this area of research? I submit 
that the statement quoted from page 27 is one of the more 
insightful appearing in the impact statement and, because of 
the unknown nature of the range of properties possible in recom- 
binant DNA containing organisms, we must be as agnostic about 
the hazards as we are about the benefits. 
Our experience with atomic energy should give us aii example 
of just hov; reliable our wisdom was in predicting the future 
in 1941. When the decision was made to proceed with the 
Manhattan project, very little was known about the biological 
Appendix K — 65 
