V. LEGAL, MORAL, AND ETHICAL ISSUES 
A. Introduction 
It appears that many of the issues associated with tfie DNA con r 
troversy are not amenable either to risk-benefit analysis pr ip the use- 
of the scientific method for ascertaining accuracy or validity. There is a 
general impression that the more difficult . aspect of national policy 
determination is one of evaluating the intuition of experienced scien- 
tists as opposed to the value judgments of both scientific and non- 
scientific participants in the debate. However, there also has been an 
element of concern as to whether there may be some inherent “right” 
to freedom of inquiry which is being threatened by the proposals to- 
control DNA research. This latter point is of marked interest despite 
the evidence of instances in which research has been regulated or 
controlled, albeit indirectly in many cases. In order to gain information 
on both the extent and nature of the value judgments as well as legal 
perceptions regarding the rights of the researcher, the Subcommittee- 
examined these more philosophical aspects of the DNA issue. 
B. Patent Policies and Other Legal Perspectives of Concern 
Mr. Morton 
W. Brown Morton, an Attorney at Law, Washington, D.C., pro- 
vided an opinion regarding patent law as it might be applicable to the 
DNA recombinant technique or its products. As he pointed out, the 
patentability of inventions depends upon concealing the nature of the- 
subject of the patent until the appropriate applications have been 
filed. He told the Subcommittee that it does little good to refer to the 
one year “grace” period following first publication of research as 
provided in U.S. law when such information is not restricted by patent- 
ability through the laws of other countries. The net result is that foreign 
patents go to the person who first files. This means in practice that 
secrecy must be maintained until a U.S. patent is filed. In addition to- 
the need for patent protection, Mr. Morton told the Subcommittee that 
trade secrets require protection in order to foster business interest in 
developments, and there is an allied, need to protect the proposals of 
researchers from premature disclosure to other candidates d,uring re- 
view of grant applications. Mr. Morton said that the Freedom of 
Information Act has proved troublesome in its application because of 
the potential for risks associated with these three areas where secrecy 
is needed. Mr. Morton referred to the Report of the President’s Bio- 
medical Research Panel, June 30, 1976 for a more detailed discus- 
sion of these issues. The need for protection of potentially patentable; 
( 55 ) 
[Appendix B — 104] 
