251 
in terms of enforcement, but also in terms of risk assessment. An outstanding 
example of this problem was the Atomic Energy Commission. An agency eager to 
develop a technology will assess risks differently than an agency whose sole 
interest is public safety. 
The AEC assessed the risks of atmospheric nuclear weapons as negligible. 
They were certainly wrong. The AEC ignored internal dissent and permitted 
the operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant. Undoubtedly the AEC 
was not indifferent to the prospect of the calamity. It must be that their 
assessment of the risk was incorrect. It is not prudent to entrust public 
safety to a development agency. It is irresponsible for such an agency to 
accept such dual roles. To avoid the conflict of interest, it is necessary 
to have countervailing public-sponsored agencies, and a regular procedure for 
direct or representative public participation. And it is wrong to limit the 
role to enforcement alone. The fact that public opinion is sometimes superior 
to that of experts has been illustrated in the planning of experts to which I 
refer in ray written statement. I will skip that here for time. 
We should consider another aspect of risk--risk acceptance. Some years 
ago Chauncey Star (?], writing in Sc ience , made an important conjecture, 
based, I must admit on somewhat limited data. It is that people tend to be 
willing to take individual risks on their own initative that are about as 
great as the risk of death due to disease per unit time. On the other hand, 
they are generally willing to accept a much lower level of imposed risks, 
such as industrial risks, for example. It is not clear what level of risks 
they are willing to accept for the sake of science. It is also unclear what 
level of risk to which they are willing to submit whole communities. 
Risk assessment is largely subjective. It is possible that scientists 
within or close to the field of microbiology sense the risks as voluntary. 
Since the rest of us do not feel we have much control over the situation, 
for us the risk is imposed. 
The assessment of risks and the system of assessing risks as embodied 
in the NIH proposals have been proven unreliable. We should not proceed 
until we obtain a reliable estimate of the risks involved and an acceptance 
of these risks by the public, who bear both the risks and the cost of the 
research . 
Thank you. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you, Dr. Schwartz. I see two hands. Dr. Neel. 
DR. NEEL: For the record, I think I should note that not all of us at 
the University of Michigan perceived the experience there quite in the same 
manner as Dr. Schwartz apparently perceives it. Some of us see the Univer- 
sity of Michigan experience as a very honest effort on the part of the 
academic community to look at an extremely complex issue. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you. 
[ 455 ] 
