Those Interested in Recombinant DNA 
June 4, 1976 
Page Four 
fact (or inferences from the fact) that Stanford stands 
to gain from the commercial exploitation of the science. 
Some of the individuals involved believe that that will 
happen. Here, too, it is impossible to prove the negative. 
In any event, their concerns must be taken seriously because 
their ability to affect policy is a valuable asset to them 
and to the University. Let me suggest some ways in which 
the appearance of conflict of interest might be mitigated. 
1. It is essential that the University be open about the 
entire process. We should not try to hide our actions 
or disguise our motives. 
2. Before the decision is finally taken to press for 
patent protection, the leaders of the most relevant 
public agencies, e.g., NIH, the President's Science 
Advisory Council, should be consulted. We should seek 
their agreement that the decision is a proper one and 
their willingness to say so publicly. 
3. If the conduct of basic research carries safety hazards, 
the conduct of commercial development programs will be 
many-fold more dangerous. The restraints of government 
regulation will be largely absent and the restraints 
of peer pressure may well be overwhelmed by the pressure 
to produce results. So far as I can tell, no serious 
thought has yet been given to the development end of 
the safety issue. Here, Stanford could make a genuine 
contribution. We might consider, for example, the 
establishment of a committee (not unlike the existing 
Human Subjects Review Committees) consisting of 
scientists and non-scientists and perhaps including 
persons from outside the University. This committee 
would review licensing proposals to evaluate the hazards 
of the proposed line of development compared to the 
likely benefits; it might also advise on laboratory 
and testing precautions required in the conduct of the 
work. 
It is within our power, in short, to act to protect our 
faculty's important role in public policy deliberations. 
Guarantees are not possible, but reasonable assurances are. 
We should see if those are obtainable. 
This is an incomplete catalog of issues and arguments, but 
it includes what seem to me the central ones. If I have missed some 
important ones, they should be added; if my analysis of the issues is 
defective, it should be corrected. It will be clear to readers by 
now that my strong preference is to press for patent protection and a 
responsible licensing program. However, if the reaction to our inquiries 
suggests that a serious ^nd damaging perception of conflict of interest 
would result from that course of action, then I would strongly urge 
caution until safer (although undoubtedly less rewarding and effective) 
mechanisms can be devised. 1 solicit the views of all who read this. 
( 59 ) 
