34 
of any history of supporting morally unacceptable experimentation; 
(4) the principal investigator of the grant should have the direct 
responsibility for the research. The delegation of responsibility to 
juniors, such as pre- or post-doctoral researchers, should not be 
permitted. 
Associated with Dr. Pieczenik’s theory of molecular competition, 
is the possibility that natural recombination of DNA, involving 
properties not specifically associated with the growth of a particular 
organism, might be common. This is an important factor in the DNA 
debate for if recombination of DNA from different species does go on 
to any significant extent in nature, then the concept that man’s 
attempts m the field of DNA recombinant research are exceptional 
would require further evaluation. In fact, the trend in the NIH 
guidelines is to decrease the estimate of the risk in this research if it is 
known that exchange does occur naturally between or within species. 
As pointed out by JDr. Wald in his testimony, he felt no strong ob- 
jection to experimental work within the. same species which are known 
to exchange DNA. 
Dr. Ryan 
Robert J. Ryan, Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo 
Medical School discussed his observation that more than one species 
of bacteria may bind human chorionic gonadotropin, a protein of 
importance in mammals but with no known usefulness in the bacteria. 
Although the evidence at this time is not conclusive, Dr. Ryan in- 
dicated that it was sufficient to warrant a continuation of their 
effort to examine the possibility that a bacterial plasmid might con- 
tain mammalian DNA. As he indicated, the availability of the DNA 
recombinant technique might make it possible to examine this prob- 
lem in more detail than any other method. He highlighted the point 
that this is the way that research works. One can never tell just 
how or when a particular piece of research might foster developments 
in a totally unexpected way. It is because of the impossibility of 
predicting the usefulness of a particular direction of research, that it is 
necessary to maintain an environment of free inquiry. 
Dr. Cavalieri 
In his critical evaluation of the proposed benefits to be expected 
from recombinant research, Dr. Cavalieri pointed out that there are 
over 2,000 genetic disorders, each of which would require a precise 
type of genetic “cure.” The development of such “cures” by recom- 
binant processes would be a monumental undertaking involving a 
great investment in research resources. Since there are alternative 
medical procedures being developed for the more frequently encounter- 
ed genetic diseases, it will be necessary to continue public examination 
of the investment in research and to establish priorities. His comments 
suggest that DNA recombinant research as a practical and safe 
method for solving problems in this area should be classified at a lesser 
priority than other research areas. He was particularly interested in 
directing attention at the immediate benefits which could accrue 
should a strong emphasis be placed upon preventive measures, par- 
ticularly in reducing the incidence of cancer, rather than in continuing 
to move into new areas with the potential for treatment. 
[Appendix B — 83] 
