164 
MR. DACH: I hate to say this, but there are going to be two more. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: All right, fine. Mr. Dach. 
MR. DACH: I would first like to make some general comments that might 
underlie the more specific ones. First, I was just interested in the com- 
plaint that there weren't enough virologists on the Advisory Committee. I 
think that is a very valid complaint. At the same time I think we can get 
an understanding of how the people classified as public representatives feel. 
There are a lot more people out there than there are virologists, and there 
aren't very many of us on the Committee either. We would like to see more 
of our viewpoint represented on that Committee. 
Also, I think I agree that the discussion before about needing to bring 
out the range of scientific opinion on all of these matters is very crucial. 
I think, as Dr. Walters might be able to tell us and what we learn from medi- 
cal ethics, that there really is no such thing as pure science, and it does 
us no good to sort of ask what is the scientific opinion here, and then let 
us overlay politics or something else on top. It is clear that values affect 
your interpretation of scientific information, and that should be made ex- 
plicit rather than trying to be buried under the table. 
Also, the discussion of politics affecting the way things were classi- 
fied, I guess the environmental groups were put over on the side that might 
have required that kind of thing. I don't think we ever try to get such 
specific things as viruses put on or made overly restrictive, or work on 
viruses made overly restrictive. I think the question is one really of 
trust, that if the people making these recommendations, and if the advisory 
board making the recommendations, were one that had more public representa- 
tion on it, that they were not really made by scientists who do have vested 
interests in their research continuing, there would be much more likelihood 
of the public accepting their scientific judgments. If Dr. Ahmed was on that 
Committee and he came in and he told me that he felt that these certain 
classes of Guidelines were appropriate, I would feel much more comfortable 
with accepting that than I would some of the other members of the Committee. 
I suggest a way to handle that issue is to put a wider representation on 
the Committee. If people trust that Committee more, they are likely to 
trust what it says. 
Then another general question I had is I really, as I say, don't under- 
stand why certain experiments are slotted where they are in a very general 
way. Why is something P2 versus P3 , or why is something EKl versus EK2? 
Is it a gut feeling that something is sort of dangerous, and something else 
is more than sort of dangerous? I would like to see that clarified in more 
detail. 
I would like to turn for a second to the problem of the exemptions from 
the experiments which are prohibited. It is mentioned specifically that 
that kind of consideration of exemptions in terms of the deliberate release 
into the environment will necessarily take into account societal benefits 
and perceived risks. I think that is a very strong argument for increasing 
[ 368 ] 
