61 
Professor Berns’ suggestion that there is a need to establish a social 
apparatus for the decision-making, process which provides for an 
unbiased and nonpartisan examination of first amendment issues. 
There is further a need to isolate such problems as the DNA recom- 
binant research controversy so that they can be examined in as 
unemotional and rational an environment as possible. 
Professor Green 
Harold Green of the National Law Center, George Washington 
University, has been involved with an examination of the DNA issue 
almost from its inception. Professor Green expressed his view that the 
problem of whether the research was protected by the first amendment 
was not clearly defined. It had not arisen in the context of court, 
examination of such issues but apparently had derived from the 
concern of a number of scientists that their right of freedom of inquiry 
was being inhibited by the public inquiry and proposals to limit this 
area of research. A few of these scientists had expressed the concern 
that the move to regulate biomedical research might even be interpre- 
ted as a beginning of regulation of all basic research. Because the 
issue has been highlighted by concerned scientists unfamiliar with 
constitutional law, such distinctions between freedom of expression 
and actions which might affect the public health have not been clearly 
enunciated. Thus, much confusion has entered the public discussion 
on the approach to regulation represented bv the development of the 
NIH guidelines. 
Professor Green suggested that there even may be some confusion 
in the minds of concerned scientists as to whether the argument is 
over the constitutional right to freedom of inquiry or whether it goes 
to the “right” of the scientist to public funds for research. Are these 
two issues, in fact, the same? He considers that the right to freedom 
of inquiry at this time is, in itself, unusual because of the knowledge 
held by scientists of other instances in which research has been 
regulated by the Government. These precedents for regulation of 
research are evidence, he thinks, that the potential for regulation of 
DNA research is well established in the case history. Thus, Professor 
Green tends to the view that such discussions correlated with the 
DNA issue are more political in nature than they are true examinations 
of the constitutionality of the issues under consideration. In his con- 
cluding remarks, Professor Green saw a paradox in his allegation that 
scientists feel free to urge the Government to spend money on research 
in support of beneficial results but are reluctant to acknowledge that 
the Government would have a right to refuse to spend such public 
money if there is a suspicion that some potential harm might ensue. 
His view was that there is no doubt that the Government has the 
constitutional power, even the duty, to use its funding power to 
support or not support scientific research dependent upon a determina- 
tion as to whether the research is harmless or harmful. The distinction 
between Government-funded research and privately funded research 
is, of course, crucial, since different legal principles may be involved. 
D. Ethical Issues of Concern 
As scientists have acquired the ability to probe into the core of life 
itself, broader ethical questions and their impact on science policy have 
been receiving special attention. Indeed, the study of ethical issues has 
[Appendix B — 110] 
