Attachment V - Page 2 
NHC 
Page 2 
specific somatic cells will almost certainly make germ-line genetic mani- 
pulation more possible technically (your wording in II-C-3, "will lead to" is 
hurtfully ambiguous: technical possibility is one thing, likely practice 
another), and it is somewhat naive, I believe, to treat this as a matter for 
predictive comment, on an optional basis, only. I would prefer that each ap- 
plicant be asked to directly respond to the question of whether and how the 
work he is proposing to do might make more feasible the possibilities listed 
in II-C-3 (a) & (b) . You will not get such information unless you insist on 
it, and, to my view, it should be treated not as a remote possibility, but as 
something on which we must be properly informed. 
Second, a minor point. Item I-C-l (the number "1" is missing) talks about 
"equity consideration." I am afraid that I don't know what you are talking 
about. The term is too abstract and remote. Do you mean something like: 
"How will patients fairly be chosen, if there are more who need treatment than 
can be treated?" A general comment: the ethical points, especially as presented 
to working scientists, should be presented more expansively and less abstractly — 
free from the kind of jargon that will produce only jargonized answers. 
Third, II-A: Should you not here ask the researchers first to try now 
to anticipate for you what those public concerns might be — and not only how 
they will proceed to provide the public with information? Just as NIH pro- 
posals are asked to talk about possible significance of the research, so too 
you might ask researchers to identify, for the RAC, the possible dangers/risks/ 
public concerns related to the work. The question itself will be useful in the 
education of the scientist and of the RAC.... 
With all best wishes, 
Yours, 
Leon R. Kass 
[ 64 ] 
