JOHN J. DEGNAN 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 
§>tate of New dJprspy 
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY 
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
STATE HOUSE ANNEX 
TRENTON 08625 
January 19, 1978 
Dr. Donald Fredrickson 
Office of the Director 
National Institutes of Health 
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 
Dear Dr„ Fredrickson: 
At the Director's Advisory Committee meeting on December 15 
and 16, 1977, you invited each committee member to submit his final 
thoughts to you in writing. What follow are mine. 
Introduction 
/ 
The Introduction to the Revised Guidelines ought to be far 
more extensive than it is now. It ought to contain much of the 
information set forth in the explanatory material sent to committee 
members prior to the meeting. The objective of the Introduction should 
be to reiterate how recombinant DNA organisms are produced. It should 
indicate why they are thought to be potentially dangerous and, 
therefore, an appropriate subject for regulation. Finally, it should 
convey a general understanding of how these guidelines differ from 
the set currently in use. All of this must be articulated in 
language able to be comprehended by the intelligent layman. 
These suggestions are intended to emphasize the critical im- 
portance of communication. That there are inadequate conduits for 
the transmission of scientific information to the public is largely 
responsible for the sometimes violent and vitriolic reactions of 
certain groups to recombinant DNA research. A well constructed, 
simple and informative Introduction to the Revised Guidelines can 
attempt to dispel some of the crippling fear of the unknown which 
has hampered efforts to debate the hypothesized hazards of this re- 
search. Dr. Campbell's remarks at the December meeting, as amplified 
in his letter to you of December 27, ought to be considered here. I 
bow graciously to his criticism of my off-hand remark endorsing the 
notion that what is not novel is safe. He is perfectly correct that 
this is not the point. What the public must be given is some standard 
for comparison. It must understand that there is no evidence to 
suggest that nature will not be at least as likely a source of harmful 
[Appendix A — 218] 
