27 
type have been done. Hew can RAC be so convinced the long-term benefits 
outweigh the costs? 
He suggested that: 
"...it would be very very foolhardy in a one hour discussion on crossing 
genetic lines for you to pass a resolution saying that you would encour- 
age this frem here henceforward. I think it's more responsible bo put 
a moratorium on this research until such time as these questions are 
being properly addressed by the American public." 
Mr. Rifkin thought the letters that had been received on this topic did 
not represent an accurate cross-section of the American public. 
Dr. McKinney felt Mr. Rifkin had either misunderstood or misconstrued the 
comments of RAC members . Dr. McKinney did not think any member of RAC 
had suggested there are not problems associated with any area of research. 
However, the history of RAC has been an orderly process of consistently 
exercising care and prudence in approaching the utilization of recombinant 
DNA technology. Dr. McKinney thought Dr. Gottesman's motion was to continue 
this orderly process so the potential benefits of this technology might be 
assessed . 
Mr. Mitchell pointed out that Mr. Rifkin' s proposal would prehibit certain 
experimentation involving the transfer of genes; thus, the question before 
the RAC is whether this area of scientific research should be prohibited . 
Dr. Rapp stressed that at least he and probably most RAC members had not 
spent "one hour" considering this issue. Most members have been thinking 
about these issues for a number of years. RAC members recognize there are 
risks associated with any new technology; however, a total prohibition will 
prevent society from ever learning whether these potential risks are real 
or mythical. 
Dr. Rapp said in our lifetime smallpox virus has been wiped out; he did 
not think the world was poorer for this action. He thought the Brins ter 
experiments had to be considered in the context of the overall pattern and 
overall benefits of genetic engineering. Dr. Rapp said seme studies of 
gene regulation, translation, and expression have to be done in foreign 
hosts. Studies such as these are leading, hopefully, to a solution of 
problems such as cancer. Prohibiting these types of experiments would 
destroy efforts to study very major human disease syndromes. Dr. Clowes 
said there are a number of scientific developments in which the benefits 
enormously outweigh the costs. 
Dr. Rapp said a total prohibition would stop a whole field of science in 
its tracks. Such attempts at prohibition have not worked at any time in 
history. RAC should continue to evaluate proposals; otherwise, researchers 
would perform these experiments in other parts of the world. Should this 
occur, the U.S. government would lose whatever control it new has over 
[159] 
