173 
have reached a concensus concerning our lack of ability to predict with cer- 
tainty the outcome of these experiments. What are we to do in the face of 
such an awesome dilemma? 
Why, proceed cautiously, of course. But what in fact constitutes truly 
cautious behavior? Would it have been prudent to withhold the polio vaccine 
for, say, ten years, to appraise all of the unknowns? It is possible to be 
too careful, just as it is possible to not be careful enough. So what are 
we to do in the face of our uncertainties? We have dealt with such issues 
over and over again in the past without gruesome consequences. In the past 
we have acted on the basis of our admittedly inadequate information which 
was at hand. 
All of my experiences and the evidence I have heard cited suggest that 
these experiments are unlikely to be catastrophically hazardous. The expe- 
rience of those who work with pathogens tells us that we can be trained to 
work with hazardous agents should they arise with no unreasonable risk to 
workers of the population at large. 
The argument that some unknown factor may arise cannot itself be con- 
tested. It must be recognized that this same logic can be used to block 
virtually any area of human activity. It is a paralyzing position. Unless 
we feel that the societal contributions of science have come to an end, it 
seems dangerous to establish the precedent that we limit our explorations 
to areas in which we know for certain what will happen. 
We can be confident that this area of research will be as difficult as 
any other and hence will require major contributions from numerous scien- 
tists. To get these contributions will require a vigorous and health pur- 
suit of this area of knowledge. Science cannot flourish in an environment 
hemmed in by an endless flow of paperwork, loyalty oaths, and the need to 
justify and obtain permission for every modification of the scientific pro- 
tocol. This burden on creative activity is of course justified if there is 
a real hazard, but it exacts a heavy price for naught if the risk is one 
only of the imagination. It seems ironic, indeed, that for many years basic 
biology or genetics was criticized for not having made any contributions to 
the lives of individuals and now that we are on the verge of doing so that 
age-old specter of things-that-go-bump-in-the-night arises to cloud our 
efforts. 
It is clear that there will be rules of some sort controlling our ac- 
tivities in this area of research. If the scientific community feels that 
these experiments represent such an unusual case that we need to abandon the 
precepts of using existing knowledge, I feel two conditions should be 
added . 
I recommend that along with these recommendations go funded contracts 
to demonstrate the purported hazards of these activities. The uniqueness 
[314] 
