21 
With reference to the foregoing semantic discussion, the testimony 
of Administration witness, Dr. Donald Fredrickson, Director of NIH, 
is pertinent. Dr. Fredrickson supported the bill as it stands and em- 
phasized that “we strongly favor preemption.” He then added : 
It is the Administrations’ view that a standard of reason^ 
ableness, as determined by the Secretary, rather than neces- 
sity as in H.R. 11192, should apply when state or local 
governments petition to have their requirements govern. I 
would like to point out that the NIH Guidelines provide for 
strict standards to govern this research, and in no sense can 
they be considered minimum national standards. Thus, I 
believe that state and local governments will recognize the 
prudence and conservatism of these standards and find them 
to be a high standard for the protection of health and the 
local environment. 
The overall impression left with the committee is thus one of some 
ambivalence. However, it is not a matter on which the committee, 
as a committee, need have a position. And indeed it does not. 
What viewpoint might have emerged as a committee position, if 
a decision on Section 106 had been called for, is very difficult to 
assess. The differences described in the foregoing resulted from a 
lively but truncated debate — and did not include expressions of opin- 
ion from a majority of the members. There seems little doubt, however, 
that a very broad range of opinion will be heard when the bill reaches 
the floor. 
Section 107. Traini/ng and Studies 
It is important for data to be gathered on the risks, if any, of this 
research and the scientific community is to be commended for its ac- 
tions four years ago pointing out the possibility of risks which might 
have accompanied some of the experiments they were planning. Their 
actions have been rightly labeled by scientists and others as a landmark 
in the history of the social responsibility of scientists. 
Accumulating scientific evidence and increasing experience in the 
laboratory has apparently diminished the concern among most scien- 
tists regarding the magnitude of risk associated with this research. 
Many biochemists now believe that organisms containing recombinant 
DNA could not be as dangerous as many known disease-producing 
organisms which are cultured in thousands of medical laboratories 
every day. 
As the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology has noted 
in its report, the recombinant DNA controversy has brought into ques- 
tion the ability of society to handle new information. In this area of 
risk assessment, it has also brought into question the ability of society 
to deal with a lack of information — in other words, the ability of 
society as a whole to deal with what is as yet “unknown.” 
Much of discovery in science is unexpected — so much so that “basic 
research” has become associated with a certain willingness to explore 
the “unknown.” Thus it may be that scientists generally are more 
comfortable operating in these realms — where there is a lack of infor- 
mation — than the average person. 
H.R. 11192 states that “while no hazard has been demonstrated” 
there is nonetheless a need for legislation. Despite this conclusion it 
[Appendix B — 209] 
