12 
effects of radiatJon, particularly 3 ov; level effects. DH/v 
had just been discovered; the mechanism of mutation v;as un- 
2 
known. The designers of The Bomb knew that E = me , but did 
not anticipate radioactive fallout from the atmosphere as 
more than a trivial problem. "Allov/able" exposures to radia- 
tion were many times higher than the current 5 rem/year, 
itself under much attack for being toe high. No one imagined, 
nor cared, that plutonium, would turn out to be a potent carcino 
gen. In short, all of the hazards, the undersirable effects 
and "environmental impacts" of the governmental action to 
develop atomic energy have been much worse than anyone iiTiagined 
in 1941. The benefits (calling The Bomb a "benefit" is ques- 
tionable) , including nuclear power were fairly \s?ell anticipated 
in 1941. Thus this case seems to be the opposite of the 
sentiments expressed in the recombinant DNA impact statem.ent. 
Just as the em.inent authorities of antiquity insisted that the 
world v/as flat, the ooncept of a spherical earth being beyond 
their wildest dreams, we run the danger of being too smug, 
or too presumptuous. We must not be led into the trap of 
believing that we know more than we actually do about any 
manifestation of recombinant DNA research and technology. 
Yet the impact statement, while admitting that "neither the bene 
fits or the risks can be precisely identified or assessed" 
implies that we know enough of the potential hazards so that 
"strict adherence" to the Guidelines should render "harmful 
effects from research with high risk recombinant DNA molecules 
. . . extremely unlikely," (page 63). I would contend that 
Appendix K — 66 
