172 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Very briefly, please. Would you identify yourself? 
DR. WRIGHT: Susan Wright, from the University of Michigan. 
I think what Dr. Rowe has said has clarified for us all, that regard- 
less of testing what the risks might be. What I am concerned about is the 
question of the timing of these experiments. Are they going to be done 
before the recombinant DNA experiments? Ideally I think that would be the 
best solution. 
Also, I think they should be done in a few restricted labs, at P4 
before any other experiments are done and before we allow a proliferation. 
I think the question of timing, when these tests will be done, is exceed- 
ingly important. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you. Dr. Wright. 
We will have to move now, taking my prerogative to keep this on tract, 
slightly. I will call upon Dr. Marshall Edgell; and then. Dr. Goldstein, 
would you be preparing during Dr. Edgell' s presentation a five-minute sum- 
mary of your second point? I do want you to be heard, but we are going to 
have to come then, without discussion, to completion of the public testimony 
within the next few minutes. 
Dr. Edgell is from the University of North Carolina. 
DR. EDGELL: Well, I think I can be brief. I am in the Biology Depart- 
ment and Curriculum of Genetics at the University of North Carolina. I am 
interested in gene regulation and applied genetic engineering and have been 
doing recombinant experiments with sea urchin DNA for several years now. 
In my opinion, the proposed regulations are too conservative. 
I would like to alter the statement that I previously submitted to the 
committee, since many of those points have been elegantly presented already. 
I would like instead to concentrate on the major philosophical point which 
has been troubling me. 
These recommendations embody, in my belief, an approach to intellectual 
activity which represents an unusual departure from the precedents of free 
inquiry. This departure is not in that we are attempting to evaluate the 
risk of a scientific activity in order to protect mankind, nor that we are 
about to impose regulations on scientific experimentation. To bring social 
pressure to bear on professional behavior is laudable indeed. 
What seems unusual in this case is that we seem to be requiring exces- 
sive precautions considering our previous experiences with genetic materials. 
Apparently it is the fear that these experiences inadequately represent the 
new circumstances which is motivating these recommendations. We seem to 
[313] 
