64 
Professor King 
Another witness supported Dr. Grobstein’s concern that society 
may overreact to potential harm which may be associated with a 
particular field of research. Patricia King, Associate Professor of Law, 
Georgetown University Law Center, suggests that the fear by re- 
searchers of excessive control might better be countered by proceeding 
cautiously but in a timely fashion to newer and more effective means 
of control rather than reaching for total prohibition. Since the advance- 
ment of knowledge has always been held in high esteem in our society, 
categorical prohibitions might seriously affect the status which science 
has achieved. Such prohibitions might be even more harmful if they 
served to force researchers who defied the prohibitions to continue 
their work out of sight of the public scrutiny. Professor King suggests 
that an appropriate cost-benefit analysis offers an alternative to 
categorical prohibitions. She acknowledged that it is frequently diffi- 
cult to collect the data which satisfies normative demands for satis- 
factory analyses of this type but suggests also that, as a matter of 
policy, the burden of proof should be on those who oppose the research 
where the available data are not adequate to complete an analysis. 
She pointed out, however, that the cost-benefit analysis should not 
be totally dependent upon the availability of scientific data but should 
also include value judgments which are necessary to such an analysis 
and which informed members of the society could address. If such 
procedures are used, there is a need for “ethical scientists” to direct 
attention to issues requiring evaluation. Once these issues are brought 
to the public attention there may be no single process for completmg 
the evaluation. 
As examples of experimental structures which have evolved to 
complete this process of social consideration of public policy issues, 
Professor King cited the experiences of the National Commission for 
the Protection of Human Subjects and the Joint Commission on Pre- 
scription Drug Use. Any decision reached by such bodies should be 
articulated in such a fashion that all interested segments of society 
can, in turn, be made aware of the factors which influenced the decision 
that was reached by the evaluating body. Both majority and minority 
views, or other conflicting opinions, should be clearly enunciated 
together with citations to related data so that a full and complete 
transcript of the policy determining factors may be openeh to public 
scrutiny. There is a need, she feels, to contipue the process of experi- 
menting with methods of resolving significant scientific issues. 
Professor Kass 
Leon Kass, Henry K. Luce Professor, University of Chicago, cited 
a number of issues in biomedical research which he believes illustrate 
the larger scope of the problem of determining science policy. Dr. 
Kass considers himself a moderate in his perspective of the debates 
which have occurred in that he respects the scientist and appreciates 
the benefits of technology, while at the same time is aware of some of 
the costs which society has and will bear as a result of instances of 
misdirected technology. He enunciated a problem implied in other 
testimony that it is not possible to draw a clear fine between good and 
bad research and technology. His concern extended even further, for 
he indicated that he perceives no clear method for deciding what 
should and should not be done by researchers. 
[Appendix B — 113] 
