2 
subsequent to that publication, and that the data dictating the 
reduction of containment encompassed by Section III-O have not been 
refuted, nor has anyone obtained data arguing against that reduction, 
it is apparent that a legitimate decision could and should have been 
made by now. 
Not only does Ms. Harris's interference impair an already 
cumbersome process, but it introduces a political disease into it. 
The question at hand is not how much of the public funds shall be 
spent on recombinant DNA research (except that such funds will be more 
efficiently spent under Section III-O), nor even whether that research 
should be supported; rather, it consists of a set of specific factual 
questions regarding the nature of a particular laboratory strain of 
bacteria, E. coli K12, and of the autonomously replicating DNA 
molecules that may inhabit that bacterium - questions that you have 
most ably addressed in your comments on Section III-O in the Federal 
Register of November 30, 1979. It is clear that outside of the NIH, 
there are few if any persons in DHEW who are sufficiently knowledgable 
to answer or even judge the quality of the answers to these factual 
questions; certainly Ms. Harris is not. Consequently her directive to 
you to seek additional public comment on Section III-O implies the 
adoption of another mode of dacision-making - namely, the taking of 
straw ballots, where inform#* and uninformed votes are counted 
equally, to obtain answers to factual questions. I need not comment 
on the defectiveness of the methods for obtaining that ballot because 
the concept itself is evidently and inherently absurd. This is the 
nature of the disease that I referred to and which I view with great 
concern, for I fear that its introduction will most seriously impair 
this nation's health reserach. 
Cordially, 
David S. Hogness 
Professor of Biochemistry 
Former member of the NIH 
Recombinant DNA Advisory 
Committee and the National 
Cancer Advisory Board 
DSH: slm 
[ 503 ] 
