66 
sary to complete a risk-assessment when the potential benefits or 
dangers from a particular type of research are being examined. It is on 
this aspect of scientific freedom particularly that proponents of 
E ublic inquiry into the status of basic research feel that scientists 
ave no basic right to unrestricted freedom. The argument is that 
since the potential for risks or benefits will affect all of society, there 
should be free inquiry into such analyses with all segments of society 
participating in the policy decisions. Those affected should have a 
right to express their views before research proceeds. He constructed 
an analogy similar to Dr. LappC’s that since research more frequently 
will affect society than the individual, it is as ethically requisite for 
society to be informed of risks or benefits as it is for the individual 
involved in an experiment to acquire informed consent before ex- 
posure. The decision to take a risk is not entirely a scientific question 
and thus cannot be resolved within the' scientific community alone. 
Dr. Sorenson cautions that this new perception of the right of 
sodiety to a more comprehensive involvement in evaluation of research 
carries with it the responsibility of society to become informed about 
the research which is being subjected to policy evaluation. Thus, 
society also has an ethical responsibility. There are costs associated 
with this approach. It may slow research progress, monetary costs of 
research may increase, and of course, the possibility always exists 
that policy errors may still occur. 
Dr. Sorenson indicated that a number of mechanisms are already 
present by which society can expand its participation in the evalua- 
tion of research directions and priorities. These include the hearings 
conducted by the various levels of Government, the professional 
societies, the National Academy of Sciences, and other institutions 
(with the implication that public interest groups are a part of these 
forums). 
Despite the frequently dramatic citations which suggest an increas- 
ing polarization between social and scientific views, Dr. Sorenson 
believes that the problem may be one of public fear of disenfranchise- 
ment rather than disenchantment or disinterest with science. He views 
this public concern as one which can be resolved if opportunities are 
provided for full negotiation and bargaining between science and 
society. Although science is important, it is even more important for 
our society to maintain the right of individuals in our society to con- 
trol their own destiny. 
Professor Glass 
H. Bentley Glass, Emeritus Professor of Biology, State University 
of New York, Stony Brook, and Chairman, American Association 
for the Advancement of Science Committee on Scientific Freedom and 
Responsibility, indicated his pleasure that the objectives of the Sub- 
committee were not limited to the public controversy over DNA re- 
combinant research but included the broader basic ethical issues in 
science. He agreed completely with the view expressed by Dr. Sorenson 
that the historical perspective of science by society had been one of 
trust and a strong belief in scientific freedom as an absolute value. 
However, in his summary of the evolving role of science, he laid the 
background for his observation that today it is not enough for the 
Scientist to have freedom, the scientist must also accept his role as a 
responsible member of society. The application of knowledge acquired 
[Appendix B — 115] 
