It is therefore not correct to assume that recombinants containing virus must 
be less dangerous than the virus itself. Experimentation on the extent of 
the hazard posed by creating a new vector for cancer viruses is surely 
called for before this type of work is permitted at all, much less under the 
almost totally permissive conditions proposed. 
A similar argument applies in the case of the bacterial types which 
are proposed to be exempted from the guidelines . Among these are some 
species which are plant pathogens, and some of these have never been proven 
to exchange genetic material naturally with certain other organisms on the 
list. Recombination could give the pathogens a new ecological distribution 
and the ability to infect new plant populations. For these reasons, 
recombinants are potentially more dangerous than the natural pathogen it- 
self. It seems to us that exemption from the guidelines can only be justified 
by firm evidence for widespread natural genetic exchange between the specific 
species to be recombined; but this evidence is not available in all the cases 
to be exempted. Moreover, the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee has 
recently decided that data on genetic exchange, to be used as the basis for 
exempting organisms from the guidelines, need not even be published in 
refereed scientific journals! Thus the data need never be subjected to exam- 
ination or criticism by others with perhaps greater knowledge of the systems 
under study; conflicting data need never come to light. A very fundamental 
scientific control involving peer review has been sidestepped. This goes to 
the very heart of the ethic of the. scientific method. 
[ 376 ] 
