48 
however, I would hope that careful consideration would be given to any 
potential unusual hazard of recombinant DNA before judging it to be non- 
nove 1 . 
Thank you. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you very much, Dr. Chilton. I appreciate 
getting your questions and comments on the record. We are going to return 
to plants, probably specifically to Ti plasmids, later on. I think that, 
if I may, I would like to then — unless the Committee is burning to press 
this issue with Dr. Chilton--I would like to go on to the next — We have 
two more public witnesses who have asked to talk in this time, and that 
will close the public witnesses for the introductory section. 
Dr. Susan Wright, from the University of Michigan. 
DR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Dr. Fredrickson. 
My interest in this issue is not so much in the technical details. 
Obviously, as a historian I do not feel qualified to have my own opinion 
about those details. My interest is rather in how broad policy emerges 
from the kinds of decisions that we see being discussed today. And just 
as important, from the non-decisions that often get made but usually don't 
get discussed or even reported by the media. That is, decisions such as 
the funding. How much funding of recombinant DNA research should go on? 
which will determine whether we have a policy of rapid expansion, cautious 
expansion, or whatever. And similarly, a decision as to whether to consider 
the kinds of policy and process questions that are being raised by a wide 
range of people outstanding in their fields in this debate — by lawyers, 
physicians, scientists, politicians, ethicists, and so on. 
I have in mind particularly the question of will the policy of rapid 
expansion at the beginning of a new technology guarantee containment of the 
hazards, whatever the hazards that evolve as the techniques grow in power 
and sophistication? 
Well, I did not receive the supporting information that has been dis- 
tributed to this meeting, even though I and my colleagues did submit a very 
detailed statement on the environmental impact statement. Consequently, 
I haven't prepared a detailed comment for this meeting, and I would just 
like to respond briefly to a question that was raised earlier, lest it be 
forgotten, about how better to receive input from the public. I take it by 
that you mean not only the people outside the biological sciences but the 
people within the biological sciences who have advocated a rather different 
policy, a policy of restraint that is different from the one that is currently 
being pursued. I don't think I have to name names. I am sure everybody here 
is familiar with those names already. 
I think there is already an excellent mechanism. It is called the 
National Environmental Policy Act. There have been two problems with 
[ 252 ] 
