49 
decreases the desire of such scientists to participate in other public 
policy discussions. Unless such scientists see some tangible benefits or 
favorable recognition from their efforts to be become involved in 
nublic debate, there may be a tendency for them to avoid such issues. 
For example, it has been said that some of the scientists who first 
brought attention to the DNA issue have been so overwhelmed in 
public debates involving speculative issues and methodologies which 
they cannot accept, that they have hinted at the fact that they are 
sorry they became involved at all. These scientists pay a heavy price 
for the time taken away from their research to assist in the public 
discussion. Additionally, these scientists must not be threatened by 
job loss or other censuring response for their involvement in public 
policy issues. 
2. Public Interest Groups and Universities . — During the course of the 
past few years, a number of citizens’ groups have entered the public 
debates concerning the need for regulation of DNA recombinant 
research. These groups often were organized as outgrowths of local 
public interest groups as well as within the framework of more formal 
local government or university committees. Since participants in this 
issue have expressed both pro and con positions with regard to Federal 
preemption of local prerogatives, the evidence from actions at the local 
levels is of interest. Further, the emphasis (particularly by scientific 
societies) upon the need for education of both scientists and non- 
scientists to improve public participation in public policy issues sug- 
gests that an examination of these many public forums on the DNA 
controversy might reveal some base line of competence already 
available. 
Sheldon Krimsky, Associate Director, Program in Urban, Social and 
Environmental Policy, Tufts University, was a participant in the 
“citizen” committee in Cambridge which examined the issue of whether 
DNA recombinant research should be permitted in that city. He 
summarized three basic points in his remarks. 
First, he believes that the city would never have been drawn into the 
controversy formally if it had not been for the efforts of a small group 
of concerned scientists. It was his opinion that these scientists risked 
ridicule and possible setbacks in their careers by directing attention to 
the issue. He supports the comments by other witnesses that there 
needs to be a better process of insuring protection for such advocates 
so that dissident scientists may feel free to speak out on controversial 
issues. Again, education and training of scientists to heighten their 
sensitivity and responsibility for public policy issues was suggested as 
a possible area for strengthening. 
Dr. Krimsky 
Dr. Krimsky indicated that the citizen board which met to examine 
this issue demonstrated that it was possible for non-Scientists to 
become sufficiently well informed on technical developments to reach 
an understanding of the issues. The citizens’ group functioned in much 
the same way as a jury might and also was somewhat analogous to the 
concept associated with the idea of a science court. The Cambridge 
committee met with scientists who explained the technical details, 
listened to advocates on both sides of the controversy, asked for addi- 
tional details from experts around the country as needed, and then 
[Appendix B — 98] 
