APPENDIX Q 
Special article by Carl Cohen, Ph.D. Copyright © 1 977 by the New 
England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 296, pp. 1203-10, May 26, 1977. 
Reprinted by permission. 
SPECIAL ARTICLE 
WHEN MAY RESEARCH BE STOPPED? 
Carl Cohkn, Ph.D. 
Abstract The prohibition of research with recombi- 
nant DNA must rely upon some argument that both es- 
tablishes a principle, applicable to research in any 
sphere, identifying kinds of defect or hazard that 
are intolerable, and shows that recombinant DNA 
research is intolerably defective or hazardous 
in the ways specified by that principle. Mo such 
argument succeed.s. Of arguments proposed to de- 
fend prohibition it may be fairly said either that the 
T he uses and possible misuses of recombinant 
DNA are so threatening, some believe, that re- 
search into that technology sh.ould now be stopped. 
But reasons good enough to justify prohibition of re- 
search in this sphere must, in fairness, apply equally 
to other spheres, if threats of similar gravity arise 
there. 
I ask, therefore; What are the alternative principles 
that, if adopted, might leasonably justify prohibition 
of research in a given sphere? Which of these alterna- 
tive principles should be rejected, and which accept- 
ed in some form or part? And to the extent that any 
one of these principles is acceptable, what bearing 
does it have upon continued research with recombi- 
nant DNA? 
My answers to these questions rest upon two fun- 
damental propositions, very generally agreed upon. 
First: freedom of incmiry is a value of nu.ii profound 
importance that it must not be abridged without the 
Address reprint requcst.s to Dr. Cohen at the Department of Philosophy, 
University of Miehig.in. Ann Arbor, .Ml 48109. 
major premise (the princiole of prohibition) is false, 
or when sound principles are put forward, that 
the minor premise (specifying recombinant DNA 
research as defective or hazardous in the ways 
called for) is far from established. There is no val- 
id practical syllogism, having true premises, whose 
conclusion is that research v,:th recombinant DNA 
should be stopoed. (N Engl ' Med 296:1203-1210, 
1977) 
most compelling reasons. This proposition, true gen- 
erally, carries great weight in a society holding lib- 
erty as a paramount ideal; it carries extraordi- 
nary weight in universities and research institutions 
committed explicitly to the enlargement of knowd- 
edge. Second; some research undertakings should 
properly be restricted. Everyone may net agree up- 
on particular cases, but it will be agreed that a ra- 
tional commitment to freedom of inquiry docs not 
protect every research enterprise in every circum- 
stance. 
The task is to characterize the enterprises and cir- 
cumstances in which prohibition may prove defensi- 
ble or even obligatory. 
Alternative Principles of Prohibition 
To justify prohibition, some would present a prac- 
tical syllogism in this form: ?vIajor premise: research 
having certain identifiable features (p.q.r...) may (or 
must) be slopped. Minor premise: this research qn re- 
combinant IDN.A, or in nuclear fission, or...) has pre- 
cisely those features. Hence, this research may (or 
Appendix Q--1 
