61 
jugate the masses by giving them bad genes manufactured by re- 
combinant DXA methodologies. This is a mad idea which I suspect 
they are too intelligent really to believe. It must be a tactical move 
in their zany campaign to convince the Boston poor to rise up against 
the elitist imperialism of MIT and Harvard. 
We never expected, however, that we would be branded as polluters 
by the environmental movement. For until recombinant DXA came 
along, we always thought we were on their side. 
After all. who wants to see our planet not fit for our children to 
inherit? When they went to court to block DDT or keep the skies of 
Monument Valley blue, we could only applaud. So why now are we 
on opposite sides ? Can we have on blinders, and can our self interest 
as scientists not allow us to see how indifferent we are to the harm we 
may do? Might, in fact, the professional environmentalists present 
arguments that we just can’t face up to ? 
I feel strongly this is not the case. Compared to almost any other 
object which starts with the letter D, DXA is very safe indeed. Far 
better to worry about daggers, or dynamite, or dogs, or dieldrin. or 
dioxin or drunken drivers than to draw up Rube Goldberg schemes 
on how our laboratory-made DXA will lead to the extinction of the 
human race. 
The strains of viruses and cells we work with in the laboratory 
generally are not pathogenic for man, and all we know about infec- 
tious diseases makes it unlikely that the addition of a little foreign 
DXA will create any danger for those who work with recombinant 
DXA-bearing bacteria. Even if no special guidelines existed, and we 
onty employed the standard microbiological practices of routine steri- 
lization. we should have no reason to be concerned for our health. 
Equally important, we should not worry that our experiments will 
profoundly alter evolution by creating bizarre life forms unlike any 
seen before. DXA is frequently carried from one species to another 
by viruses, and the global evolutionary impact of our experiments 
must be negligible compared to naturally occurring DXA transfers. 
If this is so, how can we explain the enthusiasm with which so many 
professional environmentalists wish to shut us down ? 
The answer. I fear, is that such groups thrive on bad news, and, the 
more the public worries about the environment, the more likely we are 
to keep providing them with the funds that they need to keep their 
organizations growing. So if they do not watch themselves, they will 
always opt for the worst possible scenario. 
For the short term this may give them more recruits, but I worry 
about the long-term effect. Xo one will benefit if we perceive the 
credibility of our environmental movements to be no better than that 
of the most troglodytic of our industrial firms. 
If what they say about DXA is nonsense, do we have any compelling 
reason to listen to them when they come out against pesticides that 
give us shiny apples or tell us that the waters of the Mississippi are 
likely to give us cancer? I would like someone to set me right on such 
matters, but whom to trust now is not that clear. 
[Appendix B — 320] 
