APPENDIX Q 
fHE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 
aims specifically at the development or perfection of 
instruments for killing or injuring human beings.” 
This is a reasonable principle for both persons and 
institutions; it is now accepted and applied by some 
urHversities. There are times, circumstances and some 
institutions to which it might not properly apply. 
.'\lthough this principle may serve as major prem- 
ise in a practical syllogism forbidding some kinds of 
research in some contexts, it cannot serve in a syllo- 
gism forbidding recombinant DNA research in any 
context at present. Research now contemplated with 
recombinant .DNA does not faintly resemble the “mu- 
nitions” development that would be the target of such 
a principle If such an aim were proposed, or even se- 
riously entertained, this principle might, indeed, be 
called into play. Under present and foreseeable cir- 
cumstances, how'ever, principle (3) simply has no 
bearing on the problem at hand. 
I conclude that no tenable principle for the prohi- 
bition of research based upon its product can now 
serve to restrict research into recombinant DNA. 
Principles Based upon the Process of Research 
(4) “Research should not be permitted when it is 
not conducted openly, for all to examine the ongoing 
process and results.” 
This attractive principle is of a kind very different 
from the others so far reviewed. Rightly understood, it 
presents not a limitation upon research but the state- 
ment of an ideal — one that we all properly share and 
promote. The realization of this ideal cannot and 
should not be taken as an inviolable condition for the 
conduct of the inquiry. It simply is not that. National 
security, proprietary interests (of firms or individu- 
als) justly acquired, or other special concerns may 
render full openness an impractical ideal in many cir- 
cumstances. certainly not justifying the cessation of all 
research whose conduct falls short of that ideal. 
Openness — both in the research process and for 
the results of research — is an ideal widely and genu- 
inely honored. Some universities do not permit in 
their precincts (or are inhospitable toward) research 
so classified as to restrict access to its results. But 
complete openness of the research process is very de- 
liberately not applied as a necessary condition by uni- 
versities, governmental institutions or private enter- 
prises. If it were to be so applied, a great deal of re- 
search in progress would h?' e to be discontinued. 
Much research that is planned would not (under such 
restriction) go forward. One would not seriously wish 
to insi.st upon this discontinuation and blockage. I 
conclude that the publicity principle is not even re- 
motely acceptable as a basis for prohibition. Since it 
cannet serve for prohibition generally, it cannot serve 
.so for research iii recombinant DN.*\ unless this in- 
quiry can be showm to be specially prone to the evils of 
secrecy. That cannot be shown. There is no reason to 
believe that review of the research process in this field, 
and timely publication of its results, will fail to meet 
normal standards of the scientific community. 
In fact, the circumstances surrounding DNA re- 
search lead to the very opposite conclusion. The na- 
ture, location and conditions of recombinant DNA re- 
search have been subject to a publicity surpassing that 
in any other comparable scientific sphere. Largely as 
a result of initiatives taken by the scientific communi- 
ty itself, public scrutiny in this area has been intense, 
and the researchers’ standards of openness have been, 
and are sure to continue to be, much higher than nor- 
mal. Therefore, even if the demand for openness in the 
process were an appropriate ground for restricting 
some inquiries in some contexts, it could not serve to 
restrict, in this context, inquiry using recombinant 
DNA. 
(5) “Research should not be permitted when its 
continuation is unfair, either to the subjects of the ex- 
perimentation or to those otherwise involved in the re- 
search.” 
This principle is sound; research whose process 
does substantial injustice ought not to be pursued, no 
matter its kind. Often disregarded in the past, this 
principle is now generally accepted, and is applied 
concretely to research activities in which unfairness 
can become a problem. To this end, all experiments 
proposing to put human subjects at risk — in any 
way, and to any degree, even the slightest — ■ must be 
screened by a specially organized human-subjects re- 
view committee (HSRC), one kind of instititional re- 
view board. No such research may go forward with- 
out the explicit approval of an HSRC — and this re- 
striction applies fully to any work with DNV\ that pro- 
poses to put human subjects at risk in any way. 
Restrictions for the protection of human subjects 
being already in force, they need no special restate- 
ment for a specific sphere of inquiry. Experiments 
with recombinant DNA involving human beings have 
not yet been proposed. If they become a real possibil- 
ity, and are proposed, the task of the HSRC screen- 
ing that enterprise may be a delicate one. One will 
surely agree, in any case, that fairness (noncoercion, 
full information and so on) toward proposed subjects 
must be a condition for the continuation of that inves- 
tigation. 
Fairness to other researchers- — respect for the pres- 
ent state of the work of others, fulHnformation to all 
investigators involved about what is in view and what 
is at risk — is also a demand,reasonably made. But it, 
like openness, is a principle for the guidance of con- 
duct, not the restriction of it. It cannot serve for the 
prohibition of research of a given kind. 
Principle (5), I conclude, although important and 
sound, has no special application to research in re- 
combinant DN.\. So far as it does have institutional 
applicability, its application must be (and is) gener- 
al, screening out research protocols in every sphere 
that fail to measure up to the requirements of justice. 
But measui ing up to this standard is not a function of 
the subject matter of the research. 
(6) “Research should not be permitted when the 
conduct of such research (as distinct from its prod- 
Appendix Q--6 
