74 
We must also consider when we review the experience with naturally 
dangerous pathogens, a very important fact, and that is when you are working 
with a known, dangerous pathogen with known, terrible effects, then you have a 
great deal more concern for safety and a great deal more adherence to safety 
practices than you might have if you are working with an organism which is not 
known to be dangerous, and the probability of its danger is not known either. 
You might very well have a much more lax approach to that. One of the prob- 
lems of this very conference is that there seems to be being disseminated an 
idea that the organisms are not as dangerous as we thought they were, and in a 
way this may be the opposite of a self-fulfilling prophecy. This very discus- 
sion may tend to work against that which we are predicting. 
The prospect of proliferation poses perhaps the greatest fear in my 
mind, that our avoidance of catastrophe thus far may not be continued. If 
tens of thousands are involved in DNA technology, researchers, research 
assistants, janitors, and so forth, students, then the number of occurrences 
of risk will increase accordingly, and the fact that the activity is wide- 
spread will work against careful application of safety measures. Again, 
familiarity breeds contempt. Less experienced and less thoroughly trained 
people will enter the technology at all levels. The experimenters now doing 
DNA research presently represent a highly selected group who undoubtedly have 
work habits and error avoidance skills far above the average. To develop such 
abilities in an individual may take a lifetime. The safety record so far 
accumulated may not be extended when recombinant DNA research is being con- 
ducted in every country. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Mr. Hutt. 
MR. HUTT: Dr. Schwartz, you have stated that there are indeed risks. 
There are risks in most things that go on in scientific endeavor, and indeed, 
in non-sc ient if ic endeavor. I am not sure what conclusion you draw from your 
statement. Are you suggesting greater specificity? 
DR. SCHWARTZ: I will get more specific as I go along. 
MR. HUTT: Well, but in the area of physical containment. 
DR. SCHWARTZ: In the area of physical containment my specific state- 
ment is that the method of assessing risk has been proven insufficient. 
MR. HUTT: Are you arguing, then, that there should be greater speci- 
ficity in the risk-assessment, or are you suggesting that there be some 
change in the Guidelines? 
DR. SCHWARTZ: At present, since we don't know the risks, the Guide- 
lines should be stricter, not weaker. We don't know the risks. 
MR. HUTT: Do you have any specific suggestions of where the Guidelines 
should be stricter? 
[ 278 ] 
