75 
1 U.S. Congress, the NIH , the entire scientific community, 
2 nunerous state legislatures and city councils and citi- 
3 zens group have been spending such an inordinate amount 
4 of time debating it." He concludes, "The very nature of 
5 the controversy itself is sufficient, in ny judgment, 
6 to establish the potential for harm under Section 361 ." 
7 This may be good politics, yes, but it is 
0 certainly not good science. 
g Can we return to something approaching normality? 
10 The revised guidelines are clearly a step in this direction. 
11 The question that now must be asked is what advice will the 
12 newly convened Berg et al. committee, and certainly I mean 
13 its equivalent, give us now? At the least, three points 
14 would enter their deliberations. First, that the great 
15 promise of research with recombinant DHA has been and con- 
16 tinues to be fulfilled. Numerous scientific advances in 
17 our knowledge of basic biology have been made. Sooner 
18 than we had any right to expect, the work yielded useful 
19 products. 
20 Second, although there have been thousands of 
21 experiments, there has not been a shred of evidence of harm 
22 to either health or environment. 
23 Lastly, the scientific community believes now, 
24 almost unanimously , that work with recombinant DNA is at 
25 least as safe as is any other biological research. A fact 
[ 167 ] 
