288 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you very much. Dr. DeRoos . 
Dr. Sturgis, I didn't give you a fair introduction yesterday. You were 
in environmental and occupational health long before it was a fad, and much 
of your work was, I guess, published under the name Beauceaux [?] wasn't it? 
DR. STURGIS: All of it. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: What do you think, Dr. Sturgis? 
DR. STURGIS: I think that the revised Guidelines are a step in the right 
direction, and I am impressed as I have listened to the fact that there are 
fads with us in the scientific community, the same as in women's clothes. 
Eighteen months ago we were talking about the "thrust" of everything, and at 
these meetings it has been the "scenario," and I don't know what it will be 
the next time. But I think that the Guidelines — I hesitate to say old, 
because they are not really old, but the original Guidelines — certainly have 
served a very useful purpose. I think in the light of experience the revised 
Guidelines, thought not perfect, will be even more helpful. 
Now, there was some exception taken to the use of the phrase that you 
were "erring on the side of caution." So it doesn't matter what language is 
used, but the question is, Is the prudence exhibited in the new Guidelines 
excessive? Will it discourage important scientific endeavor? 
I feel that we should avoid undue haste. There seems such an atmosphere 
of rush and scramble. The material gets to us too late to be properly di- 
gested. We don't have the time to read it thoroughly and study it, much 
less look up the references; and I would like to suggest for the future what 
several other people have suggested — that the basis on which some of these 
decisions have been reached be given a little more in detail to us who are 
asked to make suggestions to you as to whether or not the changes are worth- 
while. I think when we dash into decision-making too hastily, we lose the 
confidence of the thoughtful public. 
The main reason I like the revised Guidelines is their increased flex- 
ibility. I have said I think we ought to have more data. Repeated witnesses 
referred to the inadequacy of the time they had, particularly the members of 
the public. I don't think we really are in a position — everyone keeps talk- 
ing about the wonderfully improved situation and confidence we might have in 
the lack of risks in recombinant DNA. I don't feel that way at all, because 
I haven't heard any hard data. There have been some experiments, but I am 
not sure that what we are looking at is the right thing for evaluating the 
impact. In other words, we are talking about genetics — certainly not my 
field — but it seems to me that it may take a longer time, certainly as far 
as humans are concerned, or mammals, to see whether there is any effect on 
the progeny. So I think that we shouldn't oversimplify the thing and start 
too hastily to come to conclusions about the lack of risk. 
The main thing that I miss is lack of good communications. I think we 
have a big public relations job to do, so many earnest and sincere people, 
[ 492 ] 
