regulatory structure, the majority report ignores the broad science' 
policy aspects of the issue. We must address several broad science pol- 
icy questions before recommending the regulation of recombinant 
DNA research. For example : 
— What is the impact of various regulation alternatives of science 
and technological development and innovation? 
— What is the appropriate role of the scientific community, of the 
public, of the Congress, etc., in the regulation of basic scientific 
research? 
— What are the appropriate mechanisms and forms for efficiently 
resolving conflicts and formulating science policies ? 
— To what extent should the public participate directly in the formu- 
lation of science policies, and what should be the role of the State 
and local governments in the formulation of such policies? 
—To what degree is there a constitutional guarantee of freedom of 
scientific inquiry, and under what conditions may it be abridged ? 
— What will be the consequences of regulation on the activities of 
other nations and on our competitive economic position relative to 
them? 
These and other questions relating to the social, legal, political, and 
ethical implications of regulating scientific research must be addressed. 
To that end, I have introduced a bill, S. 2267, The National Science 
Policy Commission Act, designed to provide a mechanism for a com- 
prehensive, 2-year reassessment, clarification and analysis of Federal 
science policies regarding potentially hazardous research activities. 
Under the bill, a national commission would be established to study 
and report to the Congress with respect to its findings, conclusions, 
and recommendations regarding Federal science policies. 
Although it may be that there are alternatives to a commission of 
the sort as envisioned by S. 2267, the need for some mechanism to assist 
the Congress in the development of broad science policies is clear. It 
is essential that there be broad and varied participation by representa- 
tives of all sectors of the economy in the policy formulation process- 
I am hopeful that the subcommittee will continue to explore these is- 
sues in the following months. 
If the Congress should take the unfortunate action to regulate re- 
combinant DNA research, such regulation at least should be flexible- 
and interim in nature. The majority report recommends that legisla- 
tion extend for at least 3 years to allow sufficient time to assess the effect 
of Federal standards. Research with recombinant DNA molecules is 
a unique field in which major scientific breakthroughs have been 
achieved in a relatively short period of time. Our knowledge of re- 
combinant processes has increased many fold in the past several years. 
It would not be unrealistic to expect a continued growth in our under- 
standing of the risks and benefits associated with. such research as our 
laboratory experience grows. Unnecessarily restrictive Federal stand- 
ards could seriously impinge upon our Nations research efforts and un- 
favorably alter the course of scientific progress and development. Leg- 
islation, if passed, should expire no later than 2 years from the date of 
enactment. Subsequent review and analysis based upon an improved 
understanding of the nature of the risks and the effect of Federal 
standards would determine if there was truly a need for any legislation. 
[Appendix B — 311] 
