267 
peremptory language of regulations (the investigator shall . . .). I recall 
arguing against such change in vain. 
My reasons were very simple. It is my interpretation of the history of science 
and indeed of all culture that regulation is antithetical to creativity, and creativi- 
ty is the most important component of scientific advance. From this, it follows 
that the best regulation for the flowering of science is the least regulation — 
that is, the least regulation compatible with the needs of society. Furthermore, 
I feared and my fears were, I think, justified that regulation might lead to legis- 
lation with a specification of sanctions, i.e., punishment, for those who were 
in violation of the regulations. Whereas the so-called regulatory agencies of 
Government must from time to time adopt a punitive posture, this is, I believe, 
a poor posture for a research agency such as the National Institutes of Health. 
Against what hazards were we proposing to draft regulations? With the 
passage of time, the hazards that had been pictured at Asilomar seemed to re- 
cede. Whereas a great number of positive and useful scientific results are being 
published based upon the technology of recombinant DNA molecules, to the 
best of my knowledge no adverse results have been noted. Indeed, I believe 
that there is at this time not one iota of acceptable evidence, i.e., data publish- 
able in a scientific journal, to indicate that the recombinant DNA molecule 
technology has ever enhanced the pathogenicity or the toxigenicity of any 
microorganism. This, of course, does not mean that it never will do so, but it 
does cause one to wonder whether all of the present fuss is truly justified. It 
places the hazards in this area in the same category as those in many other 
areas for which we have no positive evidence. To clarify this point, let me 
offer you an analogy. Ever since the Middle Ages, it has been susp>ected that 
the ghosts of those who died by suicide are more menacing than ghosts in 
general. This anxiety, once implanted in the minds of the people, led to some 
interesting containment practices. The bodies of victims of suicide were ex- 
cluded from traditional burial places, lest their ghosts pollute or otherwise 
disturb the more peaceful ghosts of those who died of natural causes. They 
were doomed to be buried in the crossroads, and in order to ensure that the 
^osts not escape from the tomb, a stake was driven through the body of the 
victim into the underlying soil, thus pinning the ghost into its grave. This con- 
tainment practice continued for many centuries and was ultimately abandoned 
only in the 18th century. Experience since that time has justified the con- 
clusion — that the hazard which had earlier been postulated was either of very 
small magnitude or possibly nonexistent. We may yet prove to be wrong about 
the safety of unpinning the ghosts of suicide victims, but I should be surprised 
if this were so. 
How long do we wait, in the absence of any positive evidence, before we 
decide that the hazaxds in a particular area of research are at a socially accept- 
able level? To this question I have no specific answer. Soon we may come to 
the conclusion that the manipulations of recombinant DNA technology do not 
of them selves add significantly to the dangers inherent in the conduct of micro- 
biological research. Then we can replace our complex and, I repeat, encyclo- 
[ 567 ] 
