285 
I think that at the present time we are at a stage where there is ob- 
viously some movement, where there is obviously new knowledge; but I don't 
think that the new knowledge has been put into a sufficient perspective to 
justify what has been done in detail. My concern goes further, and though 
you, Mr. Chairman, and maybe the rest of my colleagues, felt that I was 
harping a bit too much on one small, technical point, to me it was symbolic 
of the fact that I see too much detail and often what appears to be fairly 
arbitrary details, without a strong conceptual twig to hang it on. That 
then leads people who see numbers to either overestimate them or to do with 
them things that are not legitimate, and it is this concern that I have that 
led me to make certain recommendations with respect to future research, with 
respect to public information, and with respect to, I think, what is a task 
that needs to be undertaken in addition to the burdens that you already have. 
1 think it is important to broaden the research program in the area of risk 
aassessment by bringing in new disciplines — disciplines that have previously 
not looked at these problems. 
Model-making is often muddle-making, but the fact is that it ain't 
necessarily so. I think that it is important to assure oneself whether 
indeed there is something to be learned out of the history of the AEC and 
the radiation problem — not just in the area of the way in which standards 
were assessed, in which decisions were made, but maybe even in the area in 
which the relationship to industry was established, and what weaknesses and 
strengths that has. And 1 think that it should be legitimate for NIH or for 
other Federal agencies to do research and to support and sponsor research 
in those areas. I think it is important to understand where we are with 
respect to the epidemiology of laboratory environments. I don't know that 
anybody can do something that is going to be terribly important, or terribly 
informative or decisive, but 1 have the feeling that we are certainly under- 
developed in that area. 
I would go a step further. I suggested yesterday to you, Mr. Chairman, 
that it might be important to inform the public of progress in this area. 
Now, 1 was sensitive to your remark about conflict of interest, but I am not 
sure that we can leave it to the Scientific American and Clifford Grobstein 
to do this. I think we need to have a task of public accountability with re- 
spect to the information which will establish a context for future revisions. 
1 am impressed with the fact that without the communication of a mean- 
ingful conceptual framework, too much of what is being done looks like it's 
one damn case after another, and that, I think, does not inspire public 
confidence. 
I would go a step further and say that the education is not just for the 
public at large. Let's not kid ourselves about it. It is for the education 
of other disciplines in academe too. I am impressed by the fact that our 
biological colleagues are quite sure what the issues are in nuclear dangers, 
and that many of my physical colleagues are also very sure what the problem 
is in recombinant DNA. I have a feeling that the ignorance that exists 
gives people the illusion of seeing the problems sharply. 
[ 489 ] 
