7 
Based on the discussion in the book Of Acceptable Risk by William Lowrence 
(presently special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Security, 
Assistance, Science, and Technology, and a participant in the March 1977 
Academy of Sciences forum on recombinant DNA) we will understand risk as a 
relatively objective measurement of hazards, whereas safety is a subjective 
expression of the level of risk which is acceptable to a population. In other 
^^rds, even if the various risks associated with DNA experimentation can be 
determined once and for all by an authoritative body (and, of course, we 
are nowhere near that situation at present), the question of safety involves 
many value issues which can only be articulated and developed by those members 
O.L the public which might be exposed to such risks and have the potential of 
access to the benefits of the research activity. 
None of us lives a risk-free existence, and no one should be so foolish 
as to assume that such a thing is possible. Yet all of us make determinations, 
based on our own notions of safety, as to the level of risks we are willing to 
run — when we decide to travel by automobile or by railroad, when we decide 
whether to put on our auto seat belts or not, when we decide whether to smoke 
cigarettes or to cut down our consumption, and the like. Of course, some risks 
are involuntarily thrust upon us, and some commentators have suggested that people 
are one thousand times less comfortable with undergoing those risks than with ones 
which are voluntarily assumed. So, for example, we may say that the voluntariness 
with which a risk is encountered is an important consideration in one’s determi- 
nation of safety. 
The NIH in effect recognizes these considerations. In the "Laboratory Safety 
Monograph" which is a supplement to the proposed Guidelines, is the statement 
that "any institution that has a need for an IBC must recognize that there may 
be legitimate concern in the adjacent community about whether adequate safeguards 
[ 320 ] 
