180 
on this subject. I referred to the NIH Recombinant DNA Molecule Program 
Advisory Committee, or more simply NIH Recombinant Advisory Committee, which 
has developed the guidelines. They will, because they are a continuing 
group, meet again April 1. 
I would emphasize again my realization of the pressures for the solu- 
tion to this problem, and finally, I have been reminded that it may be of 
interest to some of you who may not know, what the NIH has experience in 
enforcing guidelines or making them work with regard to human experimenta- 
tion. Here, there have been mechanisms developed through which the insti- 
tutions conducting these clinical investigative activities work with the 
NIH in enforcing and continuing the development of the guidelines under 
which they proceed. So this is not an entirely new or alien area of the 
NIH in regard to another form of experimentation. 
Now, if the committee will not take umbrage at what I have to say, we 
have enough people so that a mean time of about 5 minutes might be desir- 
able for your comments, at least for the first round. I would remind you 
again since we will be very eager to have you send up perhaps your fuller 
comments by mail, that you may hit only the high points if you so desire 
here. Or, indeed, you may pass if you like. 
I am going to start then from my left, if I might call first upon 
Judge Bazelon. 
JUDGE BAZELON: Thank you. 
Socrates once said it is a wise man who knows what he doesn't know. 
If Socrates was right, I am a very wise man. 
Of course, I wouldn't dare to express an opinion; I have none on the 
question of whether or not the guidelines are right, wrong, or in the 
middle. That goes to the merits of the question, and as far as the pro- 
cedural aspects of it are concerned, I am under even a greater disability, 
because these are questions that may come before the court, and I must be 
very careful about that. 
But I do think I can say one thing, and that is that whatever decision 
is made, Dr. Fredrickson, I think you can't go wrong, and you are probably 
very right, and you would be very safe, in making sure that the decision 
that you render has within it great specificity for the reasons why you 
came to the conclusion that you did. Not only am I talking about speci- 
ficity, but I mean to refer to what was said over these three minutes, the 
comments that were written and orally presented, what you accepted and what 
you rejected, why you accepted it and why you rejected it. 
Now, I have said too much already, but I would urge that because I 
think first of all, quite apart from the law, and quite apart from any 
[321] 
