289 
particularly young people, are deeply interested in what is being done; and 
I think we need to interpret in simple language for them the results of the 
research, and the terminology needs to be simplified. I think it would go 
a long way toward allaying the anxiety that we have created in the public. 
Now, there have been several references to getting data and basic in- 
formation on health, that is much more difficult than it seems. We don't 
know how to tell that a person is healthy, and I think it is going to be 
a big job to set up requirements for collection of basic data in workers, 
much less than in environments. So I think you will need help in that area. 
Just how industry can be brought into line with academia is not apparent, 
but I think it is wonderful that industry is anxious to abide by the Guide- 
lines, and by all means, we should move in that direction while they are of 
this mind. 
Now, I am at a loss to understand — this is irrelevant to the big ques- 
tions — but why the three people on biohazard committees here feel that 
NIH has to get them together. Goodness, why don't you get yourselves 
together? The poor two full-time people in this area are so overworked, 
why give them another job? I think you three are pretty terrific, and 
you can say that again. 
(Laughter . ) 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you. Work that out, Dr. DeRoos. 
(Laughter . ) 
Well, Dr. Gustafson, we have finally ascended to your height, and I 
really will resist any Augustinian metaphor. Dr. Gustafson is Professor of 
Theological Ethics at Chicago, as most of you know. 
DR. GUSTAFSON: There have been so many things said that I would support 
that I don't want to take time to do that. When I come to a meeting like 
this, requested in effect as I was by telephone to act as a kind of jury 
member, to listen to the arguments, one of the things that interests me is 
wherein lie the differences of opinion, and where are the disagreements that 
are before us, and in what ways can we seek to overcome those disagreements 
or can we specify the kinds of issues on which there are disagreements so 
that we can move on from that to figure out just where we can overcome them. 
Now, obviously one area simply is primary data or secondary data per- 
taining to risk factors and so forth, and it is very clear that any discus- 
sion needs to have accurate data. It is clear that any enterprise that 
necessarily finds its justification in some potential benefits, either to 
people in our generation or future generations has to engage in the most 
rational possible process of judging potential consequences, both in terms 
of risks and in terms of benefit. So I am very keen, while I have my own 
suspicions and difficulties about moving from the procedures of technology 
assessment, or risk/benefit analysis as that takes place in economics into 
[ 493 ] 
