67 
through research is a responsibility of scientists. He views the actions 
of the scientists who publicly announced the possible hazards of DNA 
recombinant research as a historic moment in science for to him it 
represents major evidence of the assumption of social responsibility 
by scientists. But this action did not end the responsibility of scientists 
to continue to participate in the evaluations of their warning. He in- 
dicated that education to develop the ability to evaluate such issues 
is a correlated responsibility of the scientists so that public partici- 
pation may be both informed and meaningful. 
Dr. Thomas 
Lewis Thomas, President, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 
Cornell University Medical College, supports the view that there is 
justification for legislation to regulate the introduction of new tech- 
nologies based on science. Beyond this, however, he stated that the 
issue of regulation of science is another matter: The uncertainties as 
to the eventual application of knowledge which evolves from basic 
research makes it difficult if not impossible for society or scientists to 
ascertain which research should be regulated and which should not. 
He believes that there needs to be a careful distinction drawn between 
basic and applied research : in the latter field, there is frequently a 
much higher degree of certainty about application and thus society is 
in a better position to evaluate the risks and benefits. 
Dr. Thomas noted that basic researchers have developed a sharp, 
intense method of inquiry. The good scientist knows that he will fail 
to secure answers to most of his inquiries. For this reason, society 
should be careful in any considerations which might lead to inter- 
ference with this process and a concomitant inhibition of the freedom 
of inquiry. Once regulation of the lines of inquiry which science is 
permitted to follow is initiated, there may be no end to restriction of 
this freedom. What is needed at this stage of the social examination 
of freedom of scientific inquiry is a clear definition of terms. Regula- 
tion of new technologies is an entirely feasible undertaking for the 
law. Such regulations should focus precisely on the issue at hand. If 
such regulations are not carefully written, there will eventually be 
restraints on basic research and this could mean the loss of science. 
In basic research, it is impossible to predict what will be discovered. 
Since that is the essence of science, regulation of basic research would 
be arbitrary rather than balanced and could only lead to the eventual 
elimination of the incentive for free inquiry. 
Dr. Ryan 
Kenneth J. Ryan, Chairman of the National Commission for the 
Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research 
and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Harvard Medical School, 
commented on the problems of gaining public participation in evalua- 
tion of scientific research. He noted that while the subcommittee’s 
objective included an examination of the ethical methods for examin- 
ing public policy issues, Committee Members should be aware that 
there is no single system of ethics in our society. Even ethicists argue 
about what constitutes an ethical principle. While ethicists may help in 
constructing principles for examination, this does not in turn make an 
ethicist more qualified to apply such principles to a particular problem. 
As an example, the evaluation of the benefits to society which have 
[Appendix B — 116] 
