78 
1 incurring unnecessary risks. 
2 The scientific community looks at recombinant 
3 DNA as a powerful tool which will allow them to answer 
4 questions beyond their previous understanding, and to 
5 do things that stretch the limits of their imagination. 
6 Very exciting stuff. 
7 While it is understandable that scientists 
8 more clearly perceive the beneficial aspects of their 
g efforts, a quick survey of recent scientific and techno- 
10 logical breakthroughs illustrates the time bomb and 
11 elusive nature of many of science’s most cherished 
12 dreams. As the Stevenson subcommittee pointed out in 
13 its recent oversight report, "At issue is the extent to 
14 which research scientists should be entrusted with 
15 responsibility for their own conduct individually or 
15 through peer review, or should be subjected to external 
17 control and scrutiny," 
18 Our position is that if the situation is 
19 serious enough to develop guidelines for the conduct 
20 of this research, then it is serious enough for the 
21 guidelines to be enforced. Self- regulation has never 
22 worked in the past; there is no reason to expect 
23 recombinant DNA to be any different. 
24 In general, my comments will focus on the 
25 procedural aspects of the guidelines, as requested by 
[ 170 ] 
