McARDLE LABORATORY 
FOR CANCER RESEARCH 
DEPARTMENT OF ONCOLOGY 
MEDICAL SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN 
450 North Randall Ave. 
Madison, WI 53706 
October 1, 1984 
Dr. William J. Gartland 
Executive Secretary, RAC 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 
National Institutes of Health 
Bethesda, MD 20205 
Dear Bill, 
I read Rifkin's letters of August 21 and 23, 1984 addressed to Dr. Talbot, 
and I strongly recommend rejection of Rifkin's unreasonable proposals. These 
proposals have no scientific rational basis and seem to be formulated on the 
basis of prejudices. Using similar arguments one could advocate the rejection 
of (1) animal meat as food (as required by some religions), (2) vaccines pro- 
duced in animals, and (3) any medical care not conforming to certain religious 
or philosophical beliefs. 
Besides being illogical and harmful to society, the proposals clearly 
violate the freedom of scientific inquiry (First Amendment; Griswold versus 
Connecticut) and the principle of separation of church and state. Mr. Rifkin's 
proposals are within the same realm as prohibitions of the teaching of evolu- 
tion. 
The basis for issuing any governmental regulation should include two eval- 
uations : 
(1) Benefits versus true and present risks (not hypothetical or imagi- 
Often the damages that result from regulation strongly outweigh the bene- 
fits of regulation (e.g., the benefits of the NIH Guidelines for Recombinant 
DNA are nonexistent from a scientific point of view, whereas the damages that 
result from such guidelines are great). 
Again, as one of the founding members of RAC, I strongly recommend the 
rejection of Rifkin's proposals. 
nary risks) of given procedures, and 
(2) Projected benefits versus projected risks of the proposed regula- 
tions . 
WS:cc 
