Dr. Donald S. Fredrickson 
Page 2 
September 21, 1976 
we can "live with " them indicates their viability. 
2. From the side of the NIH, I take it that the perennial problem 
is that of the extent of authority given to control the results of 
investigations and the amount and kinds of power that are to be 
exercised in control. The obverse side of this is the concern for 
the preservation of the freedom of research and dissemination of 
its results^ both as a matter of the rights and interests of the 
investigators and a matter of this freedom being a necessary condi- 
tion for developing work which will benefit the public interest 
(or at least the interests of portions of the public) . 
Again, it appears to me that apart from extraordinary cases such as 
recombinant DNA research, present policies and procedures are satis- 
factory to all parties involved. 
3. The matter of whether there is an audible group who insists 
that the public interest is threatened in anv case, and the adjudi- 
cation of whether it really is threatened are in principle 
separable. The fact that the city fathers of Cambridge are now 
audible and visible (and/or other groups) is a matter of some prac- 
tical political significance, but is not really relevant to the 
basic issues involved. Certainly it is not relevant to the patent 
question. 
4. Whether recombinant DNA is a special case, with special features 
of moral and social relevance, is the matter that has been debated, 
and for purposes of present discussion is settled. Recombinant 
DNA research does involve distinctive features of particular moral 
and social relevance, and therefore generally applicable policies 
and procedures are to be altered. 
5. Special, distinctive policies for patenting with reference to 
recombinant DNA must be determined by those features that make this 
research an exception to the general policies / Although I have not 
read all the documents you "have sent me about recombinant DNA, I 
have been working through those I judge to be most important, and 
I have followed (indeed, have a clipping file on) , the discussion 
in Science . My perception is that the special features can be put 
under a single heading: there are distinctive threats (perhaps it 
is a unique threat in the history of biological research) to the 
safety of the public involved in this research. 
6. If this special feature were the only co nsideration , then that 
patent policy option of the five on page three of your letter which 
minimized the possibilities of adverse consequences to the public 
would be the proper one to establish. As the discussions of recom- 
binant DNA research indicate, the feature which makes it a special 
case must always be considered with those aspects which are similar 
to all biological research and developments for its practical use. 
[ 82 ] 
