69 
avoid infrigement of the right to learn while providing the protection 
to society determined to be necessary before approving or limiting the 
application of a technology. The duty of the Congress, and other 
concerned groups, may be one of remaining informed so’that the time 
for action and the type of action required may be determined. Chief 
Judge Markey emphasized the need for continual improvement of 
communication channels between science and society, not only in 
terms of awareness but also in terms of new concepts discussed in a 
readily understood fashion. Scientists must learn to present their ideas 
in as simple a fashion as possible so that there can be no exaggeration 
or misconceptions about what is being discussed. This failure to 
comprehend fully the precise meaning of new developments often 
leads to exaggerated fears or expectations. Neither of these conditions 
is conducive to an improved public participation in consideration of 
science policy decisions. 
Dr. Edsall 
John T. Edsall, Professor of Biochemistry, Emeritus, Harvard 
University, identified two fears which he believes concern the critics 
of DNA recombinant research. One, the fear of producing new path- 
ogenic organisms and increasing the incidence of disease; and second, 
the fear that the knowledge we attain may be more than we can 
wisely use. 
With regard to the first fear, Dr. Edsall expressed his opinion that 
the approaches being taken within the NIH guidelines seem rational 
and well defined to produce as low a probability of occurrence of any 
untoward event associated with the first fear. Total prohibition would 
probably be an unacceptable restriction of freedom of inquiry and is 
the next step which would have to be taken if the guidelines are not 
acceptable. An evaluation of the second fear is more complex. Dr. 
Edsall suggested that we may have to take our chances that research 
may occasionally produce potentials for misapplication with which 
we will have to cope. He shares Dr. Thomas’ views that we are really 
profoundly ignorant of the fundamentals of biology. He believes that 
deeper knowledge will be accompanied by deeper wisdom. The only 
way that we can assure ourselves protection frcm the second fear 
would be to abolish scientific research entirely, and he considers this 
alternative unacceptable in our society. 
Dr. Sonnebom 
Tracy Sonnebom, Professor Emeritus of Biology, Indiana Uni- 
versity, humorously observed that one of the disadvantages of being 
a late witness is that everything which needs to be said has been said. 
He noted that several of the preceding speakers had made the same 
points with which he had been concerned. He agrees that the need 
for education on evolving scientific developments for the public, and 
on social responsibility for the scientists, continues to be an important 
task for all. He shares the view that there is a need for an expansion 
and improvement in the mechanisms for public involvement in matters 
pertinent to science policy determinations. He urges increased com- 
munication of ideas, internationally as well as domestically between 
science and society. The specific issue which was the theme of these 
hearings, DNA recombinant research, is not limited by national borders 
and thus must be addressed within the international forums available. 
[Appendix B — 118] 
