APPENDIX Q 
I HL: new ENGLAND journal OF MEDICINE 
operative force of the general conviction that, what- 
ever the level of risks found tolerable, there must be a 
commensurate level of precaution. Only through a 
process of ongoing review will it be possible to adjust 
restriction to enterprise rationally. Only through such 
deliberation can improvements in the effectiveness of 
containment (both physical and biologic) be weighed, 
as well as any special likelihood of misfire that the spe- 
cific nature of the investigation at hand may present. 
Finally, it is the singularity of this sphere of re- 
search, the uniqueness of its risks and promises, that 
is so specially provocative. That singularity must be 
taken account of, but should not be overplayed. Spe- 
cial attentions are rightly given, on a continuing ba- 
sis, to proposals for experimentation with recombi- 
nant DNA, all agree. Put it has been my aim to show 
that the form of the questions to be answered is not es- 
sentially differenL in this domain of scientific research 
from that in any other. There is a temptation to treat 
the recombinatiokn of DNA as fundamentally differ- 
ent just because of the character of the knowledge 
aimed at. But if 1 am right about the first set of prin- 
ciples entertained (t)^l-^3) pertaining to the product of 
researdi. this temptation should not be yielded to. 
In summary, for the general prohibition of scientif- 
ic research in any sphere, the only arguments that 
might suffice recjuire premises vastly stronger than 
any now available or likely soon to be available. There 
is no valid practical syllogism, having true premises, 
whose conclusion is that research into recombinant 
DNA should be stopped. Of proposed arguments to 
this end it may be fairly said either that the major 
premise (the principle of prohibition) is false, or when 
true principles are provided, that the minor premise 
(specifying recombinant DNA research as defective in 
the ways indicated) is very far from established. 
References 
1. Sinsheimer R: Inquiry into inquiry. Hastings Cent Rep 6(4);18, 1976 
2. Livermore S: Statement of dissent. Report of the University Committee 
to Recommend Policy for the Molecular Genetics and Oncology Pro- 
gram, Office of the Vice President for Research, University of Michi- 
gan, Ann Arbor, March, 1926. Appendix Bl, pp 46-47 
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, XJ.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 (per 2 part set; sold in sets only) 
Stock Number 017-040-00413-3 
☆ U5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ; 1977 0-250-032 
Appendix Q--8 
