39 
sees the DNA issue as an extremely important episode in the increasing 
conflict between those who see the right to freedom of inquiry as 
paramount and those who insist that the public interest is better met 
by other criteria. The DNA issue may be of particular importance 
because it serves as a focal point for beginning to learn ways of con- 
ducting inquiries in the policy-making process when the data are 
ambiguous and conflicting, quantitatively as well as qualitatively. 
Dr. Michael went even turtner; he believes that the problem of 
dealing with issues like DNA recombinant research is so complex and 
is being debated in an atmosphere of so many conflicting social values 
about what is worth risking and what is worth gaining that even witli 
a beginning flow of data a risk-benefit analysis alone would not be 
adequate to resolve the controversy. 
In further examination of the implications of the irreversibility 
of effect (from genetic research) which was introduced by Dj\ Low- 
rance, Dr. Michael went on to explain that we simply do not know 
enough about ecological systems to know whether any corrective 
actions following an observation of an undesirable change would be 
of any consequence. With regard to calculations of risk which hav^ 
been made in defining probabilities of failure of ventilating systems 
or biological containment systems, Dr. Michael noted that we have 
no way of calculating the likelihood or effect of the interaction of 
any human errors which would override the control systems imposed 
by the guidelines. We can be certain that accidents will happen. 
We can be equally certain that an accident will happen in DN4- 
recombinant research. There is no way of calculating the risk of sucfy 
an accident occurring or predicting a probability that the occurrence 
of such an accident would be harmful. As a final point of interest, 
Dr. Michael discussed the dilemma posed by a more philosophipal 
aspect of the DNA issue by pointing out that we. are attempting 
to determine policy now for an area of research which probably 
will not significantly affect society for some time; thus, we are pre- 
supposing what the society ten or more years from now will envision 
as acceptable or unacceptable risks. In other words, he was expressing 
the uncertainty that we might not know a decade from now whether 
the population might set its priorities such that it would rather 
spend money on reducing environmental factors identified as correlated 
with cancer rather than apply a technology which offered a chance 
to reduce a smaller number of genetically induced defects. A reason- 
able risk-benefit analysis should attempt to anticipate future values 
and how risks and benefits might be perceived at that time. He does 
not know how this kind of determination can be made now. 
For these and other reasons, Dr. Michael emphasized that it is 
important for those involved in making policy decisions to have 
available a number of analyses made by different groups with dif- 
ferent perspectives. Such analyses should clearly identify biases 
and the bases of determinations including those factors which have 
been excluded in the analysis as well as those included. He views thisi 
approach to science policy determination as a new and learning 
phase. The inclusion oi the examination of values, ethics, and morel^ 
in science policy is going to make the task much more difficult thaq 
some earlier determinations which were based upon quantitative 
data alone. A basic issue involved is the right to freedom of inquiry 
[Appendix B — 88] 
