STANFORD UNIVERSITY 
STANFORD. CALIFORNIA 94305 
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 
December 27, 1977 
Dr. Donald Fredrickson 
Office of the Director 
National Institutes of Health 
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 
Dear Dr. Fredrickson: 
I am writing to convey a few impressions of the December 15-16 Advisory 
Committee Meeting. Specifically, I wish (1) to discuss some instances 
where I found the material presented by some witnesses to be incomplete 
and potentially misleading and (2) to expand on my remark about the current 
absence of a valid theoretical basis for ascribing special "potential hazards" 
to recombinant DNA research. 
1. Relevance to recombinant DNA . 
One recurrent feature of many presentations was that their specific relevance, 
if any, to recombinant DNA research was not made explicit. These include, 
for example, Jon King's concerns about laboratory infections by coliform 
bacteria entering the body by routes other than oral. Coupled with his 
assertion that he does not fear epidemic spread and the general presumption 
that only very rare recombinants might be harmful, this seems to make DNA 
recombinants far safer than ordinary class 2 pathogens, for example. Likewise, 
Dr. Suzuki ' s discussion of applications and misapplications of science seemed 
to imply that recombinant DNA work was somehow more susceptible to misuse than 
classical genetic studies of temperature sensitive fruitflies, for instance. 
I hope he can be urged to spell out his reasons for that belief. 
2 . The question of novelty . 
Besides these more blatant examples, there were frequent statements that re- 
flected a failure to distinguish between those hazards attributable to artifi- 
cial recombination and those that are already inherent in all biological 
experimentation (or indeed in any activity, experimental or not, that influences 
the growth and reproduction of living organisms) . As I consider this issue 
central to the main point of this letter, let me cite one example from the 
Advisory Committee meeting. In the discussion of the Introduction section, 
someone (Mr. Helms, I believe) summarized our committee's action in excluding 
non-novel recombinants with words to the effect that "If it's not novel, it's 
not dangerous." Miss Zimmring, on the other hand, reiterated the statement 
in Document 25 p. 71 that "The real question is not whether the organism is 
novel, but whether it is safe." 
[Appendix A — 156] 
