APPENDIX Q 
WIiEN NfAY RESEARCH BE SrORPEI):> — COHEN 
cheaper methods of isotope separation?’' Sinsheimer 
doubts whether such research is in man’s best in- 
terest, yielding “slightly cheaper power, far easier 
bombs. ’’’ 
(iii) “Research upon a simple means for the prede- 
termination of the sex of children?” Sinsheimer ap- 
pears to believe that the resultant potential for “a ma- 
jor imbalance in the human sex ratio” shows ad- 
vances here to be undesirable.' 
(iv) “Indiscriminate research upon the aging pro- 
cess?” Sinshcimier appears to believe that the stated 
goal accompanying legislation to advance such re- 
search, “keeping our people as youne as possible, as 
long as possible,” is not, on balance, desirable.' 
It is hard to know what to make of these sugges- 
tions. They are very cautiously put, half in interroga- 
tive form. But (whatever Sinsheimer believes or may 
find desirable), if such speculations are treated as .ar- 
guments for the principle of restriction here involved, 
they fail utterly. Two observations will suffice. 
First. The most that such apprehensions could es- 
tablish — supposing that everyone shared them — is 
that it might be that certain inquiries will not prove 
beneficial on balance. Of course that may be. What 
follows? Precisely that argument has been presented 
(with greater force than in most of Professor Sins- 
heimer’s instances) against every scientific advance: 
against Galileo, against Darwin, against Freud. Such 
obstinacy (it was urged that good men not even took 
through Galileo’s “infernal glass”) is now considered 
indefensible. It is not an iota more defensible now 
than it was then. It was entirely correct for the oppo- 
nents of these seminal thinkers to insist that inquiry of 
the kinds that they opposed might not prove benefi- 
cial in the end. What does that tell about the princi- 
ple invoked? If, now, the same principle is used not 
merely to discourage but to prohibit research — in re- 
combinant DNA, for example — one will operate 
under strictures of essentially the same character 
as those that persuaded so many rational men to 
condemn the teaching of the Copernican hypothe- 
sis. 
Second. The illustrations given by Professor Sins- 
heimer of the applicability of his principle, his pleas 
for “prudence,” where ignorance seems to him more 
desirable than knowledge, are self-convicting. If prin- 
ciple (2b) when applied means — as it appears to for 
him — that researches into the aging process, into nu- 
clear power, into extraterrestrial contact and so on are 
to be blocked or restricted because of what may trans- 
pire if they are successful, the upshvot of the argument 
is revealed. He helps one to see the extreme conse- 
quences forced upon everyone, unacceptable to most, 
if the principle of restriction that he has put forward is 
taken seriously. 
Finally respecting (2b), one variety of great injury 
that some foresee (unlike catastrophic decisions hav- 
ing unintended impact) deserves remark. It is the 
gradual deterioration of human culture resulting from 
ever more extended subjection to technical control. As 
technology comes to f)erv.^de culture (some contend), 
human values must retreat — even wither. So we can 
defend our most humane interests only by disarming 
the technologists. Well, the probability of this feared 
outcome is very difficult to estimate. Its likelihood, 
in my judgment, though not trivial, is not great. To 
proliibit research on such grounds would be intol- 
erably repressive. On this interpretation of disaster, 
too, the principle v\ould cut against technological 
advance in every sphere, not that of molecular ge- 
netics alone. 
For principle (2c) [that research be prohibited 
'vhen the probability of its very injurious conse- 
quences is high or very high] the case is different. 
V\'f:re we to believe that in a given case, the prohibi- 
tion of that specific inquiry would be, I judge, at least 
arguable. In such circumstances — the only persua- 
sive candidate I can think of is research into nuclear 
explosives — the alleged probability would have to 
be explored, documented, established as fully as re- 
sources would then permit. Even here potentiality for 
benefit would also need to be weighed. Recognizing 
that rational men may ultimately differ in the resolu- 
tion of such cases, one must allow that for some re- 
search ventures the probability of disastrous use of 
the products might be so high as to justify prohibi- 
tion. 
Again, two observations respecting (2c). First. Our 
rational commitment to freedom of inquiry is such 
that, in judging any claim of highly probable disas- 
ter, the burden of proof clearly rests upon those who 
would prohibit on that basis. They must present a 
convincing account of what concrete disasters are en- 
visaged, what the methods are for determining the 
probability of such outcomes, and how those meth- 
ods establish the high probabilny of the catastrophe 
pictured. The burden here is noi light, nor ought it to 
be. Scientific inquiry should not be blocked simply 
upon the presentation by critics of a parade of ima- 
gined horribles of unspecified nature and doubtful 
likelihood. 
Secondly, principle (2c) does not, in any case, ap-, 
ply to research with recombinant DNA. There is some 
probability (it may be supposed) that, after years of 
further development, the products of such research 
might be put to malevolent use — as instruments of 
war (although better, more convenient killers are al- 
ready at hand) or in the realization of some (now far- 
fetched but then realizable) brave new world. There is 
some probability of that, one must grant. But that 
probability, on the best evidence now available, is 
slight; at its gravest interpretation, which very few 
would accept, that probability is no more than mod- 
erate. A high probability it is not. Hence in this sphere 
principle (2c) does not apply. 
I conclude that principle (2) is generally inapplica- 
ble in most of its forms, and that in none of its forms 
may it properly serve to prohibit any research in the 
'oiochemistry of genetics now contemplated. 
(3) “Research should not be permitted when it 
Appendix Q--5 
