58 
and approve each project, annual or other renewal of licenses, and simi- 
lar detailed requirements would substantially discourage recombinant 
DNA research 
C. Constitutional Issues of Concern to Basic Research 1 
Considerations 
Professor Barron 
In the session on these issues, Chairman Thornton observed that it 
would be useful to compare the constitutional basis for freedom of 
expression with the right of Government to regulate action. Jerome 
A. Barron of the National Law Center, George Washington University,, 
emphasized that his examination was directed primarily at what first 
amendment protection means in terms of scientific research. He 
refined the issue for discussion purposes as a question of whether 
constitutional law (as evidenced in case history) has accepted the idea 
that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is protected wherever the 
pursuit may lead. Professor Barron indicated to the committee that 
there have been some broad interpretations from the Supreme Court 
which might suggest a sort of blanket protection for scientific research. 
In discussing several of the precedents which have been examined r ' 
he referred to the constitutional right to receive information and ideas- 
As he explained the issue further, however, it seemed less clear that,, 
if there is indeed a right to receive, that this right automatically 
supports the right to explore and investigate. Using several cases 
related to the issue of obscenity, he pointed out the paradoxical 1 
nature of the various arguments as they might be applied to an 
examination of the freedom to inquire through basic research. For 
example, would the final decision be left up to local community action 
as is the case in obscenity determinations? Professor Barron appar- 
ently believes that special attention is given to first amendment 
freedoms because this amendment is a structure favoring change. 
Scientific research contributes to change. Obstacles to change are of 
concern. Therefore, if the irreversibility of potential changes from 1 
such research as DNA are indeed true, they provide difficult issues for 
examination from the perspective of typical constitutional protection 1 
of freedom precedents. Because of the very specialized and contro- 
versial nature of the DNA debate, Professor Barron indicated that 1 
certain basic propositions should be kept in mind. These are: first, 
claims of pure scholarship and an unlimited right to communicate 
have rarely been examined by the Supreme Court in absolute terms * 
second, a first amendment resolution to the problem of permissible? 
societal limits of DNA research will be futile if a clear decision for or 
against uninhibited DNA research is sought; third, if first amendment, 
doctrine is used to solve such problems as limits of scientific research,, 
it will serve only to mask rather than clarify what is taking place p 
and, fourth, if first amendment tests are to be used in the DNA issue,, 
then a clear balancing of pro and con arguments (risks-benefits) is; 
necessary. Mr. Barron perceives the issue as one of determining how 
many people in society should share in decisions which might con- 
ceivably result in reshaping the nature of life. A claim to the right of 
free inquiry should not be used to shield science from participation by 
the public op matters which could be of profound significance to all. 
[Appendix B — 107] 
