pathogens. The results would be unpredictable. Nevertheless, someone like 
myself who Is Interested in microbial pathogenicity, must recognize this type 
of experimentation as a most powerful tool to study the mechanisms by which 
microorganisms produce disease and by which such diseases can be prevented or 
cured. In fact, I strongly suspect that many of today's problems in 
infections may not be solved without this type of experimentation. Just as 
many others require (well supervised) experiments in human volunteers. For 
this reason, such experiments certainly should not be prohibited. On the 
other hand, the not unlikely consequence of enhanced pathogenicity for the 
resultant recombinants calls for certain safeguards. 
I am therefore attracted to the Intent of Dr. Gottesman's proposal of 
retaining a minimum of outside review and control of the type of experiments 
outlined in the preceding paragraph. I do not agree with all the concerns 
implied in Dr. Gottesman's proposal. For example, 500 liters of culture in a 
fermenter are probably less dangerous than 9 liters in a glass carboy in 
someone's laboratory. Nevertheless, I consider Dr. Gottesman's proposal to be 
the best-balanced approach yet to reconcile the often conflicting but 
nevertheless imperative needs of our society for aggressive research as well 
as for safety. Most of us will probably agree, on hindsight, that the 
recombinant DNA controversy was a lesson in what pitfalls to avoid in future 
conflicts of this nature. Part of the lesson is to avoid extremes, and that 
is what Dr. Gottesman's proposal tries to acconq>lish. I urge the RAC to adopt 
a final reccxmnendation that embodies the basic philosophy expressed in her 
proposal. 
Professor of Microbiology 
and Immunology 
RF/ew 
References. 
(1) Recomb. DNA Tech. Bull. 2 (2): 68-76 (1979). 
(2) J. Infect. Dis. 137; 624-629 (1979). 
(3) In: D. A. Jackson and S. P. Stitch (eds.): The Recombinant DNA 
Debate. Prentice - Hall (1979); pp. 155-172. 
2 
[ 698 ] 
