240 
DR. SINSHEIMER: Just a small point. There is a basic question, Jim, 
as to on whom should lie the burden of proof, and we could spend a long 
time discussing that. I just want to make the point that really was made 
yesterday, when you weren't here, that there is not a sufficient base of 
evidence to say whether anyone has or has not been harmed by recombinant 
DNA. There is simply no data as to the health of people in laboratories. 
DR. WATSON: But that is true of everything. I mean, we were damned for 
Legionnaire's disease by Ruth Wald about a year ago. Then my neighbor 
gets pneumonia in Martha's Vineyard, and he comes up to me and says recom- 
binant DNA. I mean, what am I supposed to do? Every case of atypical 
pneumonia? Jesus. People have enough reason to attack me, without this. 
(Laughter . ) 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Dr. Campbell? 
DR. CAMPBELL: There are two general points about recombinant DNA. I 
agree very much with Jim, but I think there is one thing that has been un- 
said here. There is not only an absence of evidence that recombinant DNA is 
harmful, but there is also the absence of something which I think some of us 
thought existed at the time of Asilomar, although nobody had stated it very 
explicitly, and that was that there was some valid theoretical reason, as an 
extension of existing knowledge, for thinking that recombinant DNA did pose 
some special threat. I think Jim was already fairly — had seen through this 
argument by the time of Asilomar, and had adopted roughly his present posi- 
tion. It has taken some of us longer to reach that stage, but I would say 
that at this time I am still waiting to hear someone provide a coherent, 
convincing argument that I can accept that there is any theoretical reason 
for worrying about the dangers of recombinant DNA. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Mr. Helms. 
MR. HELMS: I think that is a terribly important point, frankly, because 
we obviously, in proceeding along these things, there ought to be a theo- 
retical construct that is the basis for going in whatever direction we are 
going. 
Now, let me ask you without trying to — obviously you don't any longer 
think that there is. Am I correct, Dr. Watson? 
DR. WATSON: I was never very worried about it. I thought a meeting at 
which people talked about it was the most silly, goddamn thing I ever did. 
I have done a lot of silly things, but it was by far the silliest. 
MR. HELMS: But I gather now, the very specific question I am asking you 
is whether you think that there is a theoretical construct for recombinant 
DNA materials causing harm to the public, and you do not think there is? 
[ 444 ] 
