59 
In his concluding remarks, Mr. Barron noted that the first amend- 
ment provides as much case law which would ; support the proponent 
in the DNA controversy as there is to support those who oppose 
this research. 
Professor Bems 
A political scientist, Walter Bems of the University of Toronto^ 
has had an interest in constitutional law, and more specifically, the 
first amendment to the Constitution* for seme time. He considered 
DNA research to pose questions of whether such research might be 
considered a form of speeeh and thus protected- by the 5 first amend- 
ment. He believes that if this question had been asked in the past the 
answer probably would have been yes to both parts. The historical 
assumption, according) to Professor Bems-, has been one of 'viewing 
science as good for society; and because absolute freedom 'was good for 
science, absolute freedom of inquiry was- good for society. Today, 
however, Professor Berns notes that there are some scientists who are 
beginning to have doubts about science’s value for society and there 
is an even larger segment of the general population with' doubts con* 
ceming the net benefit of science. He perceives that the time for more 
caution in scientific reseach is being enunciated by neW social forceSJ 
Under these circumstances, he would see nothing in the Constitution 
to prevent the Congress from exercising its prerogative to reqtiire a 
new degree of caution in the process of scientific inquiry. He perceives 
nothing in the first amendment to forbid the Congress to address -the 
question of scientific research from the point of view of its good' for 
society rather than from the point of view of individual rights. Mr. 
Bems focused a considerable portion of his thesis around his view that 
there may be an increasing need for man to move slowly in whatever 
capabilities he may have to modify man. Associated with this concern 
was a suggestion that Congress may wish to consider the construction 
of a constitutional procedure for encouraging discussion of the societal 
issues which have been highlighted by the controversy centered around 
the DNA recombinant molecule research issue. 
Professor Emerson 
A somewhat different position on the constitutionality of the right tQ 
freedom of inquiry was summarized by Thomas I. Emerson, Emeritus 
Professor of Law, Yale Law School. According to Professor Emerson, 
the first amendment fays down fundamental principles which should 
be applied in any examination of the freedom to conduct basic re- 
search. He cautioned, however, that while the first amendment could 
be interpreted as providing full protection for expression it does not 
necessarily offer the same protection for action. This “separatist” 
view of the first amendment suggests that scientific research might 
need to be analyzed to determine the phases of the research which 
may be identified clearly as expression and those portions which are 
action. According to Professor Emerson, expression is fully pro- 
tected by the first amendment. Action is, or may be, subject to regula- 
tion, although regulation must conform to due process of law as to 
equal protection and other constitutional requirements. In the case 
of the specific issue of DNA research, Professor Emerson suggested 
that the study of the theories involved and an exposition oi these 
[Appendix B — 108] 
