4 
experts in epidemiology and infectious disease were not brought into the discussion 
on any substantial scale until very late, it is important to note their agreement, 
at the Falmouth Conference, that laboratory work with recombinants in E^ coll 
K12 does not pose a public health hazard that requires extreme precautions, or 
that exceeds the familiar hazards of work with known pathogens. 
5) Finally, the scientists who originally proposed a moratorium clearly 
underestimated the anxiety and confusion that would be generated by public 
discussion of conjectural hazards. These hazards were recognized as conjectural 
by those who raised the question, but they inevitably seemed real to others. 
An example of the resulting confusion between ideas and reality is provided 
by a statement in a news article that appeared in the December 1977 issue of 
Trends in Biochemical Sciences (and in a very similar form in Science magazine 
a month earlier). In a discussion of the reported use of an uncertified vector, 
in experiments on the cloning of the insulin gene, the reporter stated that 
"the earlier experiment clearly presented no threat to public health, since 
it was conducted in a medium security (P3) laboratory as required, and the vector 
has since been certified." I submit that it is nonsense to suggest that certification 
determines the real safety or danger of an experiment: what it determines is 
legality, based on presumptions about safety. The distinction is particularly 
important here because the regulations involving PI to P4 and EK1 to EK3 have 
weak foundations, compared with the universally respected regulations that 
are based on the demonstrated biological effects of exposure to various levels 
of radioactivity. 
I therefore conclude that it would be scientifically justifiable, though 
[Appendix A — 169] 
