68 
been postulated as an expected product from successful application of 
the DNA recombinant technique is, in fact, a value judgment. Such 
value judgments differ among individuals with different expectations 
and experiences. The role of public policy groups should be to provide 
an opportunity for acquiring a cross section of these value judgments 
so that a consensus may be obtained. Thus, Dr. Ryan believes, the 
ethical dimensions of any public policy consideration of recombinant 
DNA or any other similar issue should be a rational review of facts and 
issues at hand, an examination of principles basic to out society, and 
the selection of the most obvious reasonable options for the policy 
decision. 
Dr. Ryan further explained that a central theme within our society 
is respect for the individual; this includes freedom of thought and 
freedom of inquiry. Repression of these freedoms has led to the 
construction of societies which this Nation currently considers un- 
acceptable forms of government. However, the associated concept in 
our society that resources should be allocated equitably requires that 
freedom of inquiry must frequently be balanced against priorities in 
public policy decisions. Such balances have not been achieved in our 
society as yet and this is one of the sources of distrust and suspicion 
which produces debates similar to the Current one on DNA recombi- 
nant research. As Dr. Ryan said, “Valid value judgments can be made 
only when sufficient factual information is available. The bitter de- 
bates and public posturing in the DNA controversy have confused the 
issue Over what is known and what is conjecture. The likely outcome 
will be to proceed With caution.’ * 
E. General Views and Perspectives 
As noted earlier in this summary, the authority of the Constitution, 
and particularly the first amendment, Was examined to determine 
whether any inherent legal right to freedom of inquiry exists. In 
concluding testimony, Howard T. Markey, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of 
Customs and Appeals, addressed a number of issues from his experience 
in the judiciary. 
Judge Markey 
Chief Judge Markey observed that the Constitution grants no 
specific powers to the Congress with regard to scientific research. He 
added the observation that the writers of the Constitution would 
probably have included today the additional statement that “Congress 
shall make no law abridging the freedom to learn.” Science in his view 
is another part Of the learning process. He referred to technology as an 
application of knowledge. Thus, he was constructing the same per- 
spective about regulation that several other witnesses had acknowl- 
edged. There is a need to examine carefully the distinction between the 
freedom of inquiry, or learning phase, and the responsibilities for 
action, in this case, the use of technologies. Chief Judge Markey 
summarized his views in such a way as to emphasize the extreme 
caution which should be taken before any infrigement on the freedom 
of inquiry is initiated, while at the same time he readily acknowledged 
the right to regulate following due process examination and determina- 
tion of the need to regulate. The problem then becomes one of de- 
termining whether regulation cah be constructed in such a way as to 
[Appendix B — 117] 
