291 
the other extreme people who believe in the minimal ist ic , the fundamentally 
libertarian view of the state. I am not arguing that people come to these 
positions in some rational way and then think out everything from some 
dogmatic ideological position, but I am suggesting that tendencies towards 
those directions show up in what we say, particularly, even in terms of 
small, incremental decisions we want to make, whether we are dealing with 
regulations, or with guidelines — whether the regulations that we are 
dealing with ought to be X or Y or Z. 
Now, I think that what makes it difficult for most of us is that we 
obviously do not want to be put into the corner of being totally in favor of 
a paternalistic state that intervenes at all times, even against people's 
consent, for what is presumably their best self-interest. On the other 
hand, we are not totally satisfied with a society without regulation of 
dangers which are present to people. And it is because we cannot, and for 
good reason, cannot come out with some kind of unambiguous position in terms 
of the polarity of a big ideological issue, that we have to deal with the 
messiness of guidelines and regulations as we have them, and so forth. 
Now, in terras of specific responses to the Guidelines, and I shall 
indicate only one or two here, I want to myself enforce what I think is the 
importance of getting the best possible information about risks and benefits. 
It is a mistake for us to get information about risks if we don't get infor- 
mation about benefits. I am basically in favor of freeing up on things that 
apparently are quite risk-free. I am certainly in favor of the exemption 
clause and various things like that, but those details I will put in writing. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you, Dr. Gustafson. 
We are really very grateful to the members of the Committee, and indeed 
to all of you who have attended this session. Your patience and your partici- 
pation has been extraordinary. 
I should say that Mr. Hutt's suggestion about further publication of 
some of the background data, particularly the Falmouth Conference, is certain- 
ly something we will take into serious consideration, because I do think it is 
very important that there not be any mistake about the nature of those data — 
that in my view they represent not so much new data, but published data which 
were viewed for the first time by people with expertise in infectious disease. 
I think it is extremely important that that be available for the view and the 
observation of all people. This is, in my view, a period when there has been 
some movement in the data base relative to the problems that we have been 
debating about. How much and how far that has moved has, of course, been very 
much a subject of these two days' discussion. 
I would request that all of you furnish us with any further comments 
you might have within the next 30 days, a deadline at least for matters of 
comment on procedure and perhaps on philosophical issues. I think that for 
scientific data or evidence, there can never be any deadline or any limit. 
[ 495 ] 
