142 
But I take it that it is also the case that the NIH, as a public insti- 
tution, has to be concerned about the political in another sense — namely, 
What is the public good, or what is the public well-being? — and it seems to 
me that if we think of the political in terms of what is for the public 
good or the public well-being, then it seems to me we have got to recognize 
that there are margins beyond the purely scientific, that it is the responsi- 
bility of an advisory committee to the Director of the NIH to take into 
account. From some perspectives, I suppose this is finding compromises 
among interest groups. From other perspectives, I take it, it is trying to 
find a solution which takes into account not merely the legitimate interests 
of the scientific community, but takes into account other legitimate values 
that people are concerned about in our society. 
I would worry, Mr. Chairman, if the word "political" took purely pejor- 
ative connations, and if this Committee didn't recognize that it has a re- 
sponsibility for the public well-being of which the scientific is only one 
part . 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Dr. Sturgis. 
DR. STURGIS: Dr. Gustafson and I seem to see eye to eye pretty much, 
and I am very concerned because we seem to be acting on the assumption that 
we really know all the answers, and I think that is far from true. If we 
look into the field of occupational medicine, where not long ago we laughed 
at the hazard of asbestos, and now it is very well documented, what do we 
know about the latent periods that may be involved in these things. I ad- 
mire very much the revised Guidelines' attempt to err on the side of caution, 
to be prudent. I think it would be a sad thing if the National Institutes 
of Health, which command such great respect, were to jump in on the basis of 
inadequate data, and take too definite stands which they would later have to 
retract. I think we ought to be prudent. I think they made provisions for 
exceptions, and I think that we should be cautious. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Dr. Ginsberg. 
DR. GINSBERG: I couldn't argue with Dr. Sturgis' very well put state- 
ment. The reason I initiated the questions to Dr. Rowe was that I think they 
have erred on the side of caution in a sense so restrictive to progress that 
I think it is worth this sort of discussion, however it turns out. I think 
this is a very important discussion. 
I think there is a lot of data on polyoma. I think that one can ques- 
tion how much data are available to much of this, vis-a-vis adenovirus or 
even SV40; but I think that relative to whether polyoma can infect man, or 
does infect man, I think there is a world of data. So I think that is why 
I picked on that virus, and I think it might be that one could be less 
restrictive with one virus that we know a lot about, and develop the risk- 
assessments through that rather than having the community. I should have 
prefaced my remarks, I do not work in this area myself. I am a virologist, 
but do not — have not and do not — intend to do these experiments in the imme- 
diate future, so I am not talking from a personal interest. 
[ 346 ] 
