176 
while this level is inadequate, as the Asilomar and Wood's Hole [and now the 
La Jolla guidelines] have attempted. 
"Rather, an inevitable, prudent, philosophical approach for this type 
of hazard seems to be one which says we will do those recombinant DNA exper- 
iments judged to be worthwhile in as safe a way as possible. This approach 
is justified because the potential hazardous consequences of the DNA recom- 
binant work are extremely serious, and because of the all-important distinc- 
tion between quantifiable, (e.g., radioisotopes) and nonquantif iable, (e.g., 
recombinant DNA) hazard probabilities." Only strong and tight guidelines 
will allow this approach. The social benefits which may arise from DNA re- 
combinant work will be of equal value whether they come in 20 years versus 
25 years; 50 years versus 55 years; 100 years versus 105 years. They will 
endure, if valuable, for many centuries thereafter. For five or ten years 
now, a slow, thoughtful, research-based approach to limiting hazards makes 
sense. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you very much, Dr. Goldstein. I certainly do 
appreciate your reading of this statement. 
I would like now to call upon Dr. Stetten, who has been allotted five 
minutes . 
(Laughter. ) 
Dr. STETTEN: I will sit here in order to avoid wasting time. I went 
over my notes last night to fill the assignment of summarizing. I have lis- 
tened carefully this morning. Summarizing adequately is obviously impossi- 
ble. The present confusion clearly, I think, arises from the fact that we 
are being asked to offset hypothetical hazards with speculative benefits. 
It is a familiar problem to me, because I saw it in the first meeting of 
our advisory committee, that there were widely divergent viewpoints, 
because, really, of the absence of hard data. 
I would just summarize, if I may, some of the divergences which we 
have heard in the last day and a half. On the one hand. Dr. Fredrickson, 
you have been advised that the guidelines that were drafted were too per- 
missive. On the other hand, you have been advised that they are too 
restrictive. 
On the one hand, you have been advised that we have moved too slowly. 
On the other hand, you have been advised that we have moved too rapidly. 
On the one hand, you have been advised that the language of the guide- 
lines is too strong in that it embodies law, rather than guidelines. On the 
other hand, you have been advised that it is too weak, that it uses the con- 
ditional mood "should," where it should have been "shall." 
[317] 
