50 
reached its conclusions and recommendations. In this case, the com- 
mittee decided to recommend that experimentation be permitted to' 
continue with tlie addition of a number of requirements. These added 
to the statements in the NIH guidelines but dealt primarily with: 
administrative controls of the research and not with changes in the 
basic protocols for the conduct of the research. 
Although a science court might be perceived to be analogous to the 
"citizens’ court” type of procedure actually followed in Cambridge* 
Dr. Krimsky believed that a science court could not have succeeded.. 
In his opinion, and the testimony in other portions of the Subcommit- 
tee’s hearings tend to support this opinion, there is no single body of 
fact or theory relevant to the assessment of risk on which all scientists 
could agree. Accordingly, Dr. Krimsky believes that a broader exami- 
nation of the problem by a selection of individuals with diverse back- 
grounds and representing a range of social values should be utilized 
so that a maximum of public confidence in any decisions could be 
developed. 
Among the issues highlighted by the Cambridge review, Dr. Krimsky 
believes that several remain unresolved and require more attention. 
One of these is the need to examine the social and ethical consequences, 
of DNA recombinant research. Since these consequences involve an 
examination of what, if any, limits need to be placed upon research 
and the decisions may be far reaching in impact, such a dialogue should 
be national in scope. In the case of the Cambridge Review Board, a 
recommendation was made that two national commissions be created. 
One of these would establish guidelines, health monitoring standards,, 
and licensing procedures for all institutions undertaking recombinant 
DNA technology; the other would consider the social and ethical im- 
plications of the use of the technology in research as well as in indus- 
trial and clinical applications. 
Mrs. Taft 
Hessy Taft, Princeton, New Jersey, also participated in a citizens’ 
examination of the DNA recombinant research issue. She is a member 
of the Princeton Citizens’ Committee on Biohazardous Research. 
Although trained in science, Mrs. Taft is not currently engaged m 
DNA research. She shares the opinion evident in Dr. Krimsky ’s testi- 
mony that society can profit greatly in examining public policy issues 
by using the resources available from local involvement. She expressed 
tne additional opinion, however, that it does little or no good for a, 
local community to insure that safe conditions are established if such 
conditions are not similarly upheld on a national level. She indicated: 
her belief that there is a need for Federal legislation in this area. Hen 
position was summarized as a need to proceed cautiously but not to. 
prohibit research. She would support continuation of the research only 
if appropriate precautions are taken and if the guidelines and their- 
moaincations can be legally enforced in an effective and practical 
manner. 
Like Dr. Krimsky, Mrs. Taft also believes that there is a need for 
a continuation of the examination of the larger societal issues that have 
ethical implications. Again, where it is not possible to quantify the 
data available, aiid where contrasting viewpoints are presented by 
equally competent scientists, the non-scientists must use other value 
[Appendix B — 99] 
