62 
crystallized within, the past decade to the point where several institutes 
now devote full time to such problems. These groups, in turn have 
served as central resources for scholars, and other institutions which 
have begun to examine theories regarding the role of ethics in public 
policy. 
The DNA recombinant molecule research issue seems to be as much 
a struggle for the formalization of procedures for gaining broad public 
participation in policy determination as it is a matter of specific 
concern" about public health and Safety issues: Indeed, part of the 
difficulty of evaluating the policy implications of the recombinant 
DNA issue has been the task of identifying the concerns of specific 
relevance to this area of research as contrasted with the broader 
problems applicable to all research. As an example, almost all of the 
witnesses, at some time or another during their testimony revealed 
the value judgments about scientific research which were influencing 
their positions on the DNA issue even though many of the discussions 
were intended to focus upon scientific evidence and not ethical values. 1 
•None the less, the Subcommittee did select a number of individuals 
known to be concentrating on the ethical aspects of public policy 
determination' for that reason. 
Dr. Lappe 
Dr. Marc Lapp 6, Chief, Office of Health, Law, and Values, State of 
California, and formerly an associate of the Institute of Society, 
Ethics, and the Life Sciences (Hastings-on-Hudson, New York) has 
been studying the problem of linking scientific findings to social policy 
for a number of years. As he noted in his opening remarks, science 
remains a solitary activity while ethics is social. Dr. Lapp6 believes 
that the pressures to drive science into the arena of public activity are 
being countered by resistance from scientists. He cited a recent deci- 
sion by the National Academy of Sciences to avoid further public 
involvement in examinations of the conditions for regulating DNA 
recombinant research. He sees an analogy between the actions of the 
opponents of uncontrolled “human experimentation” and the current 
efforts by various groups to insure a public involvement in the deter- 
mination of policies for the conduct of recombinant DNA research. 
An important distinction which Dr. Lapp£ identifies in the earlier 
controversy over protection of individuals from dangerous experi- 
ments is the new focus on the protection of society. This places a 
responsibility on scientists for, as he noted in his analysis, science that 
is shaped by society also in turn shapes society. 
Choices of areas of interest, testing methods chosen, uses to which 
early data are put, and other steps are conditioned by political and 
social perceptions of the value of the science. Since they are making 
decisions affecting the processes of science or the accumulation of 
knowledge, policymakers must consider two fundamental questions: 
What constraints, if any, should be imposed on science; and, second, 
what limits should be placed on the processes which are approved? 
In Dr. Lapp6’s opinion, both of these questions are topics warranting 
public scrutiny. Though he admits the dangers of potential inhibition 
of basic research from ill-considered regulation, he sees a logical 
argument for public responsibility to determine the need for public 
regulation. His answer to the task of evaluating science in public is to 
insist on involving and educating the public how and when to deny 
or delay the continuation of any research which compromises human 
[Appendix B — 111] 
