65 
In the most simple terms, Dr. Kass suggests that in areas where 
there is no clear cut line for decisionmaking, the best approach is to 
be “sensible.” Attempts at regulation could be taken at the wrong 
time, in the wrong way, and for the wrong reasons. In reaction to 
speculations of potential hazard, it may be just as easy for opponents 
of research to do as much harm to society as has been speculated for 
the research in question. There is a need to determine carefully what 
is possible as contrasted with what is likely in making policy deter- 
minations. He is wary of attempts to limit research in the absence of 
careful examination of the social and ethical questions relevant to 
the field of research under evaluation. Since knowledge is power, 
there may be a need, at some time, to place constraints on the acqui- 
sition of certain kinds of knowledge if society does not have the capac- 
ity to control the power which such knowledge might provide. Such 
determinations cannot be made casually in a free society, however, 
and will require continuous consideration. It is in this area— determin- 
ing the point at which inquiry and action may lead to uncontrollable 
or undesirable powers — that the need for careful policy determination 
becomes crucial. 
Professor Sorenson 
James Sorenson, Associate Professor of Sociomedical Science and 
Community Medicine, Boston University Medical School, continued 
a theme already advanced by noting that science and society are 
“beginning to alter their existing contract.” This changing contract 
is forcing science and society to reexamine both social values and re- 
search priorities. The dialogue necessary to resolve such issues is 
both political and scientific. 
Dr. Sorenson chose to consider both the adequacy of the current 
mechanisms of self-regulation of scientific research as it functions to 
protect society from possible dangers of research, as well as attempts to 
preserve social values ; and, secondly, to outline a rationale as to why 
additional monitoring or regulation of research may be useful as well as 
ethical. 
He cited the argument that scientists can regulate themselves and 
that an externally imposed formal regulation would be an abridgement 
of the right of the scientist to freedom of inquiry. Those who do not 
accept this position argue that it is impractical to ask any group 
with self interests to regulate itself since the values of the research 
group may different from the objectives of the public. 
Dr. Sorenson noted that it is important to add to the record the fact 
that self-regulation is not absolute The scientific community has a 
powerful system in place for peer review, there is public funding 
which must be justified and which results in public examination of 
proposed research areas, and members of a research team have the 
freedom to take issue with research programs and to take their ob- 
jections to their representatives in Government. Nevertheless, failures 
may be expected. 
Should Science Judge? 
With regard to the right of freedom to inquire, society generally has 
assumed the role that knowledge is better than ignorance. However, 
Dr. Sorenson avers, there is an increasingly vocal disagreement with 
the concept that science should be free to make all judgments neces- 
[ Appendix B — 114] 
