63 
values. However, in adopting a more active role in science policy 
determinations, responsible public groups, such as the Congress, must 
examine the scientific data with a much broader set of criteria than 
simply the evaluation of the reliability of the experimental data. The 
scientific method provides for the testing of data from experiments. 
Policy determinations must be based on different evaluations. Issues 
such as who decides; what are the effects on other lines of inquiry; 
what is the meaning to society of the continuation of a particular 
line of inquiry, and similar factors are more appropriate to policy 
determinations. Thus scientific data alone cannot be the sole criterion 
for policy determinations, and representatives of the people may be 
justified in making a determination that human values may supercede 
scientific imperatives. 
Professor Grobstein 
Clifford Grobstein, Professor of Biological Science and Public 
Policy, University of California, San Diego indicated that it was nec- 
essary for legislators to be cautious with proposals for ‘‘quick-fix” 
legislation. Using the DN A recombinant molecule controversy as an 
example, he pointed out that as the research has evolved there have 
been changes in the perceptions of risk. Furthermore, there is an in- 
herent difficulty in determining the future requirements for surveil- 
lance and regulation. These rapid changes in evaluations already have 
suggested that original proposals for legislation may have been 
excessive. 
With this history as a brief background, Dr. Grobstein suggested 
that another appropriate question might be to ask whether there 
is enough information available to formulate sound public policy on 
this issue. Dr. Grobstein considers that society is in a critical period 
in the changing relationships between the knowledge generating body 
of society (the scientists) and society itself. While he considers it 
reasonable for society to monitor the steps being taken at new frontiers 
of knowledge, care must be exercised that this monitoring does not 
degenerate into a fear so strong that the accumulation of knowledge 
is threatened or extinguished. While he offers no general answer to 
the task at which society must work in balancing risks against benefits 
and freedom of inquiry against social control, the task can be simpli- 
fied by classifying the research in question as to its potential conse- 
quences. The search for knowledge, in his words, requires informed 
consent from those who will be affected during this search. Obvious 
dangers need to be controlled. Longer term or less obvious potential 
effects require more care in evaluation. Where consequences are 
entirely speculative, then the burden of proof should rest on the 
speculator. In no instance should the freedom of inquiry be surrendered 
without evaluation of all of the consequences. 
Although he could offer no specific formula for the solution of the 
need to couple the accumulation of knowledge with social purpose, 
Dr. Grobstem offered several suggestions. He supports the concepts 
offered by others that there is a need for a new forum for policy 
discourse. There is a need to correlate the knowledge-acquisition 
system to public policy formulation so that the evolution of knowledge 
does not surprise those with the responsibility to make the policy 
decisions. The DNA issue has served to focus public attention on 
these basic research policy issues and offers the opportunity to coh- 
tinue to explore new avenues for decision-making. 
[Appendix B — 1X2] 
