1228 
THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ME 
ME 
May 26, 1677 
community and the public at large. The go-ahead sig- 
nal should be the result of a public-health decision- 
making process, developed by decision-making bodies 
democratically appointed and representative of a rich 
diversity of ethical and scientific points of view. 
And in the interim? I believe that the research 
should proceed,' but on a more limited basis, perhaps 
only at regional facilities of high containment staffed 
by experienced and well trained personnel. A host 
bacterium less ubiquitous than Esch. coli also seems a 
wiser choice. Such a temporary slowdown would have 
no effect on freedom of inquiry. Rather, it would ef- 
fect freedom of manufacture — the manufacture of 
novel self-replicating micro-organisms. A miscalcula- 
tion on our part as scientists would have far more 
damaging effects than a temporary slowdown on sci- 
ence as we know it in terms of public outrage and mis- 
trust. 
The societal benefits that may well arise from gene 
transplantation studies will be valuable whether they 
come in 20 years versus 25, or 50 years versus 55. 
These benefits and the sheer excitement and beauty of 
scientific endeavor will endure for centuries thereaf- 
ter. For five or 10 years now, a slow, thoughtful ap- 
proach to limiting hazards makes sense in terms of 
progressive public-health policy. 
Harvard Medical School 
Boston, MA 02115 RlCHARD GOLDSTEIN, Ph D. 
References 
1. Sinsheimer RL: Speech before the Forum of the National Academy of 
Sciences, Washington, DC. March 8, 1977 
2. National Institutes of Health: Guidelines for Research Involving Re- 
combinant DNA Molecules. 1976 
3. Wedum AG: The Detrick Experience as a guide to the probable efficacy 
of P4 microbiological containment facilities for studies on microbial re- 
combinant DNA molecules. Recombinant DNA Research (DHEW 
Publication No. [ N I H ) 76-1138). Vol I. Washington, DC, Government 
Printing Office, 1976 
[Appendix C — 93] 
