52 
Dr. King 
Johnathan King, Department of Biology, MIT, also testified on his 
experiences. He is a member of a citizens’ advocacy group that was 
instrumental in directing public attention to the DNA issue. He is an 
investigator in the field of molecular biology, often funded by Federal 
funds, and is quite familiar with the scientific background. He high- 
lighted the problems encountered by a scientist attempting to secure 
public evaluation of an issue believed to have social implications not 
generally perceived outside the scientific community. 
Dr. King expressed his opinion that up until the Cambridge com- 
mittee’s examination of this issue, there had been no true public 
involvement. Preceding meetings, in his opinion, either had restric- 
tions formally established by invitation lists or were held under cir- 
cumstances which prevented participation by a number of concerned 
individuals. In fact, Dr. King expressed the view that a national 
policy had been made to proceed with the research without having 
had any evaluation of the issue by the people’s representatives ; that 
is, the public congressional hearings on regulating DNA research were 
initiated after the publication of 'the guidelines authorizing the re- 
search. This produced a great deal of frustration on the part of indi- 
viduals like himself who felt that the issue was out of their control. 
Dr. King thus viewed the decision by the Cambridge City Council as 
a very important return to the political process. 
Some of the accomplishments of the Cambridge Council which 
Dr. King enumerated as being significant were: (1) they invited 
public testimony from the opponents of the research ; (2) they invited 
testimony from workers other than the researchers in the laboratory; 
and (3) they raised the critical questions of accountability and envi- 
ronment. In his opinion, this was the first time that these points were 
addressed in a truly responsible fashion. He viewed these council 
meetings as an outstanding example of participatory democracy and 
an illustration of the fact that people can understand a difficult scien- 
tific problem and reach reasonable decisions when they are personally 
involved in the decision-making process. Dr. King considers local 
action as the best way to gain public participation. Although he 
believes that a national commission should be established to examine 
the DNA recombinant research and other similar issues, there is no 
reason why the State or local community should not become involved. 
In fact, he suggested local commissions may even contribute to the 
work of national commissions. As with Dr. Krimsky’s observation, 
Dr. King believes that multiple inputs to the social implications of 
science policy decisions may be the best method of resolving such 
issues. National health policies need to be reconnected to health 
research priorities. The people should be involved in these deter- 
minations. 
In direct response to the question about “who decides” in public 
policy issues, both Dr. Lowrance and Dr. Michael indicated in their 
testimony that the decision process should be and is a process in 
which the public has a right to participate. The public, as they 
envision this process, includes the Congress, through its representa- 
tive role, through the committee hearings and similar forums; and 
public discussions at the local level. The determination of the level at 
which this involvement should occur for specific problems, or the point 
[Appendix B — 101] 
