4. Evidently, considerable uncertainty about the probable 
outcome of these experiments results from the fact that these kinds 
of experiments have never been done; so that past experience is r.o 
help. There is evidently no assurance in the minds of the invest- 
igators regarding whether the results are likely to be positive or 
negative; this is shown by the precautions they plan to take. 
5. The experiments would attempt to produce a new strain 
of E. coli with the property of inducing infection acquired by 
splicing genetic material from mouse polyoma virus. 
6. This new strain could escape even from the P-4 facilities 
and might cause human diseases including cancer. 
7. The polyoma virus genes of the new strain of E. coli 
might, through naturally occurring processes, be transferred to wild 
type strains ubiquitous in the environment which normally propagate 
themselves in the guts of animals or humans. 
8. This could lead to a widespread epidemic of new animal 
or human diseases including cancer, many years later, long after the 
new wild type strain had become widely disseminated. 
9. It seems to me short-sighted and self-deceptive to attempt 
to produce a new cancef-inducing strain of E. coli for the purpose of 
trying to find out whether or not it can happen, in order to determine 
whether such experiments are safe. Isn't this asking for trouble? 
10. Even if the results were negative, that would give me 
little comfort. Another slightly different recombinant DNA research 
project at a later time might still do it, either on purpose or by 
mistake. 
11. In view of the admitted possible hazardous nature of 
these experiments, and the questionable benefit, it is my opinion, 
that they should not be allowed to proceed until an environmental 
impact statement has been duly filed under the Environmental Protection 
Act; so that the public who may be at risk can evaluate the possible 
risks and benefits before these experiments are undertaken. 
[Appendix C — 140] 
