267 
Dr. Margery Shaw has the viewpoints of a biologist, or a geneticist, and 
a lawyer — two talents which inevitably mean that she is now acting as a dean 
at the University of Texas. 
(Laughter . ) 
DR. SHAW: That's going to end at the end of this month. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Dr. Shaw. 
DR. SHAW: Dr. Fredrickson, let me state at the outset that I am basic- 
ally in favor of the adoption of the proposed revised Guidelines. I think 
the testimony that we have heard from the microbiologists leads us to feel 
that — or rather I get the feeling that — we are participating in a wake. We 
have a dead body which we are not yet willing to bury, and yet we wish to 
speak of this body, or this issue, as if it were still alive. The issue, 
like a notable person, will not be buried in the minds of the survivors. 
Indeed, I think we have all been enriched by the openness and fairness of 
the hearings, by the original intent of the scientists with their letter, 
and by the Asilomar conference to air the issues in public. We have been 
involved in safeguarding the democratic process. 
Now, however, if the Guidelines are relaxed by the adoption of the pro- 
posed Guidelines, and if they continue to be relaxed in the future by further 
modifications, we might take stock of the lessons that we have learned by 
this exercise. I think many of us are concerned with priorities. The issue 
of recombinant DNA research--wi th its unknown, unproven, and probably non- 
existent hazards — should take a back seaL at this point. It has been viewed 
and reviewed. But scientists themselves should not take a back seat in 
bringing more pressing issues before the public. 
Steps have already been taken in two areas of research, and they include 
public and political scrutiny. These are the areas of human experimentation 
and of chemical hazards in the environment. But other areas of biological 
research also need public attention, and these include what we have heard 
around the table: the microbiological studies with human pathogens, espe- 
cially in routine hospital laboratories; the unassessed risks of cell culture 
and somatic cell hybrid research that Dr. Neel referred to; in vitro fertili- 
zation with subsequent implantation; tumor virus research; and development of 
safe vaccines — just to mention a few examples. 
I think much of the recombinant DNA discussion has brought to light a 
catch-22 situation, which is probably not surprising. We need these risk 
assessment experiments, but we do not like to engage in potentially dangerous 
research. I applaud the exemption clause from the prohibited experiments, 
and also the willingness to certify new host-vector systems. 
Let me cite two other catch-22 situations in biology which I think need 
public attention. Perhaps they will not receive it, because they are not as 
[ 471 ] 
