9 
Yet, it is quite vital that there be public awareness and understand- 
ing of this kind of experimentation. Its theoretical promises and perils 
have already been much dealt with in the public press, but there is need 
for further informed discussion of the practical aspects of this activity. 
I think it is important for you to recall that it was the scientists 
engaged in recombinant DNA research, including some who are here with us 
today — Dr. Paul Berg, Maxine Singer, and David Hogness and others — who were 
involved in the call for a self-imposed moratorium to assess the potential 
hazards and to devise appropriate guidelines. 
Through their efforts, the NIH and the NSF supported the conference 
which was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and held at Asilomar 
in February of 1975. Their action also led the NIH to establish an Advisory 
Committee to develop guidelines for recombinant research that is funded by 
the NIH, and to devise programs for assessing and controlling hazards in 
such research. This NIH committee has proposed the guidelines that we will 
be considering at this meeting. 
There is a precedent within the NIH for developing guidelines when 
research activity may place populations at risk. In clinical research NIH 
guidelines have required informed consent of human subjects, and an assess- 
ment through mechanisms such as peer review and institutional review boards 
of the risks and benefits of proposed research. Ethical, legal, and social 
values can thus be taken into account in fashioning the criteria and the 
standards for clinical research. 
Now, the proposed guidelines on the DNA recombinant research emulate 
the present NIH guidelines governing clinical research, in that they rep- 
resent an effort to balance scientific responsibility to the public and 
scientific freedom to pursue new knowledge. 
The public responsibility weighs especially heavy in this genetic 
research area. The scientific community must have the confidence of the 
public, that the goals of this profoundly important research accord respect 
to important ethical, legal, and social values of our society. 
There is a key element in achieving and maintaining this public trust, 
and that is that the scientific community insure an openness and candor 
in its proceedings. Today's meeting and the Asilomar meeting reflect an 
intent of science to be an open community in considering the conduct of DNA 
experiments. 
How to insure public and scientific participation in developing na- 
tional science policy is a very difficult problem, but it is not an in- 
soluble one. Some attempts have been made in the legislature. Some others 
have suggested that a science court might be a possible mechanism for 
a i- r i n g issues such as the one before us today. Its features would include 
[ 150 ] 
