175 
If the scientists who sounded the '74 warning had been informed as well 
as we are now, there would have been no letter to Science , there would not 
have been NIH Guidelines, and we would not be here tonight. But we are here 
and this only for historical reasons. 
So what should we do, especially with those parts of the Guidelines which 
we now know are designed to protect us from imaginary dangers that we know do 
not exist from the practical point of view? We have in front of us a new 
draft prepared by the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee which exempts some 
kinds of DNA combinations and adjusts the containment for some other combina- 
tions, but the most unusual feature is a new introduction stating that the 
Guidelines continue to be deliberately restrictive with the intent of erring 
on the side of caution. So I would like to make a comment on what the committee 
meant by the phrase deliberately restrictive , and why it was decided that the 
new Guidelines should be intentionally erroneous. 
My understanding of these phrases (I was temporarily chairing the Committee 
when the Introduction was prepared) is that there is no scientific justification 
for the Guidelines, but to abandon them at this time might be politically un- 
wise. 
Therefore my emphatic suggestion would be to exclude from the proposed 
Guidelines at least all those recombinant DNA experiments that employ E. coli 
K-12 host-vector systems, with only those exceptions which are already listed 
as "prohibited experiments" and maybe a few more specific classes of exper- 
iments if there is any justified concern about them. If you think it would be 
helpful, you should require only a very simple registration of EK1 and EK2 
experiments with the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee and the ORDA so you 
would know what is going on. 
There is no good reason to separate the experiments employing novel and 
not novel DNA combinations. There are very many novel DNA combinations without 
any practical dangers, and there is a general agreement about it now. 
I certainly agree that it is very important to protect the public, but 
there are two ways to do so. One is to protect them from the hypothetical 
risks, but only if there really are any significant risks. Another is to 
protect the public from excessive or unsound regulations, because these could 
really be damaging. It is a two-edged sword. 
Let's face it. There is no trace of any practical risk in cloning and 
studying human genes coding, for instance, for immunoglobulins, and these very 
important beneficial studies on our natural defenses against disease are 
presently made very cumbersome and often impossible under the Guidelines. 
I cannot comprehend why the very important, safe, and very beneficial 
medical research on human genes and proteins that are involved in preserving 
our health should be greatly restricted. I could give many other examples. 
For instance, Herpes 2 virus causes a very unpleasant and dangerous infection, 
especially in women. However, there are no vaccines, and there is no good 
[ 379 ] 
