13 
COMMITTEE VIEWS 
General 
In Part 1 of this report, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce presents a full sectional analysis and discussion of its views. 
The Committee on Science and Technology submits herewith its views 
on the bill as a whole, and provides additional views on selected 
sections. 
“Legislation in this area would represent an unusual regulation of 
activities affecting basic science.” This statement by Secretary Califano 
enunciates the basis for the Committee’s concerns regarding H.R. 
11192. It would be unfortunate if this period in our Nation’s history 
were someday to be named the Science Regulation Era, but at times 
that possibility does not seem unlikely. It is disturbing to see another 
segment of human endeavor laid open to regulation, particularly at a 
time when people are upset by the mushrooming F ederal bureaucracy 
and the accelerating growth of encumbering and restrictive controls 
in all aspects of their lives. 
The regulation of recombinant DNA research may be an opening 
wedge into future regulations of other areas of basic research. This 
fact is viewed by many people — especially by scientists — as a major 
attack on the freedom of scientific inquiry. 
Scientific inquiry, of course, is not an absolute freedom, nor is 
science automatically exempt from all restraints or regulation. There 
has been no question of the propriety of regulating research involving 
human subjects or radioactive materials. When the freedom of scien- 
tific inquiry is in conflict with other freedoms which are valued at 
least as much, then it is certainly proper to constrain scientific inquiry. 
The difficult questions are: what constitutes a truly serious conflict, 
and what type of social control is appropriate ? Matters such as these 
are what this Committee and the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce both attempt to address under “Need for Legislation.” 
The Committee on Science and Technology suggests that the real 
threat to the freedom of scientific inquiry may be less likely to come 
from those who would restrict or regulate research to protect the 
public health, safety or other values we cherish than from those who 
believe there are some things man just should not seek to know. 
Thomas Jefferson once stated that “There is no truth on earth that I 
fear to be known.” This sentiment seems as applicable now, after 
several centuries of unparalled scientific advance, as it was then. 
Equally crucial is the very thorny question: should government be- 
come the arbiter of knowledge? Were such events to crystallize then 
freedom would truly be gone. 
The bill H.R. 11192 was developed only to protect the public health 
and the environment. As - stated by the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce, “legislation is justified only to the extent that 
safety guidelines are necessary.” 
Just as recombinant DNA research might present a risk to health 
and the environment, the precedent set by this legislation may present 
a risk to the freedom of scientific inquiry. The committee is concerned 
that any instance of regulating research might facilitate the adoption 
of another. As in any area of regulation, the government must guard 
[Appendix B — 201] 
