7 
dent, American Society for Microbiology; (10) Daniel Hayes, former 
mayor, Cambridge, Mass., and Chairperson, Cambridge Experimen- 
tal Review Board; (11) David Clem, Member, Cambridge City Coun- 
cil, Massachusetts; (12) Joseph Stetler, president, Pharmaceutical 
Manufacturers Association; (13) Jacqueline Warren, Environmental 
Defense Fund, Washington, D.C. ; (14) Pamela Lippie, Friends of the 
Earth, Washington, D.C. ; (15) Jeremy Rif kin, Peoples Business Com- 
mission, Washington, D.C. 
The witnesses addressed the following proposals as outlined by the 
Subcommittee Chairman : 
(1) A national commission, with a majority of nonscientists, 
might be the best vehicle to regulate recombinant DNA activities ; 
(2) All recombinant DNA activities in this country should be 
subject to the same regulations ; 
(3) The regulatory process ought to be flexible and reflect new 
knowledge or risks and benefits as it becomes available ; 
(4) The ethical, legal and moral implications of this work 
should be given careful scrutiny ; and 
(5) Local communities should retain the right to be stricter 
than the Federal regulations — including the right to prohibit re- 
combinant DNA research in their own communities. 
There was uniform agreement that recombinant DNA activities 
have the potential to create novel forms of life and that the implica- 
tions of these activities could have a profound impact upon the future 
of mankind. 
Some witnesses expressed the view that recombinant DNA research 
should be banned. Others maintained that scientists should be free to 
continue this research in an unrestricted manner. Proposals monitoring 
the safety and application of recombinant guidelines would assure the 
safety of the research. Others favored strict licensing procedures and 
safety monitoring. Several witnesses felt that dissemination of infor- 
mation would be necessary in order to keep the public informed and 
allow them the opportunity to participate effectively in the decision- 
making process. 
The implications of various applications of recombinant DNA ac- 
tivities were also debated. There were proponents of the idea that ge- 
netic recombination could produce immeasurable benefits for mankind 
including cures for disease; methods for producing needed drugs and 
medications which are now expensive and time-consuming to make ; 
manipulation of agricultural crops to allow them to fix nitrogen di- 
rectly from the atmosphere instead of using expensive, energy-con- 
suming methods for producing nitrogen-rich fertilizers ; and most im- 
portantly to some, a significant advancement in man’s knowledge of 
basic biological processes. Other witnesses raised serious questions 
about potential risks associated with these activities and pointed that 
benefits remain purely speculative at this time. One witness construct- 
ed a doomsday scenario of what could happen if this work produced 
new and dangerous organisms capable of damaging worldwide vege- 
tation or microorganisms which could cause widespread epidemics be- 
cause of the absence of host resistance. Some witnesses raised grave 
concern about the possible unethical use of the recombinant technique 
toward the end of human genetic engineering. 
[ 747 ] 
