126 
that what we are considering today is not simply another research tool, but 
a radical change in our ability to manipulate our environment and, indeed, 
ourselves, too. 
Recombinant techniques have been compared to the release of energy from 
the atom, both in terms of power and in terms of the destructive effects on 
the environment. 
There are two broad categories of questions which may be asked with 
respect to recombinant DNA techniques, or for that matter with respect to 
any other form of research which entails hazards to human life. 
First, what is the nature of the risk? Second, is the risk acceptable? 
The questions are very different in nature. The first is a scientific and 
technical question. As such it must be resolved under appropriate circum- 
stances by members of disciplines which can make a contribution to resolving 
it. 
The second question is quite different. It is ethical in character. 
As such it is a question which no single group is inherently more qualified 
than others to ask and to answer. It is unfortunate, I think, that in dis- 
cussions of the implications of recombinant DNA so far, as well as in the 
decision-making process, that these questions have been confused, but I 
think this was also reflected in the discussions particularly this morning. 
Given the radically different nature of these questions, and the dif- 
ferent qualifications which are appropriate for answering them, two separate 
but related decision-making processes are desirable. 
Up to this point, as we know, the principal decision-making mode, de 
facto if not de jure, has been the drafting of guidelines by the NIH advi- 
sory committee. I shall discuss the contribution of this committee to the 
decision-making process from three perspectives. 
First, in terms of the operation of the committee; second, the composi- 
tion of the committee; and third, the theoretical basis of the guidelines. 
With respect to the first question, it seems to me that in terms of the 
operation of the committee the questions with respect to the nature of risk 
and the acceptability of the risk have been confused, for in being charged 
with the task of formulating guidelines the NIH committee was operating 
under the assumption that the research would go on, no matter what. In 
other words, the issue of acceptability was pre-judged. 
That claim could be disputed. It could be claimed that the NIH com- 
mittee would, if it thought it necessary, advise that all forms of research 
be discontinued. My response to that claim brings me to the second ques- 
tion, the question of the composition of the committee. 
[267] 
