192 
The first is that I am not as persuaded as Dr. Callahan that there is 
no moral obligation to go forward with this research. In the law certainly 
there are concepts of obligations to act in order to prevent harm as well as 
to refrain from action in order to prevent harm. I think this may be an il- 
lustration where inaction could be of greater detriment to the public than 
action. I am not sure that all of us have enough information to really make 
that judgment at this time, but certainly I am persuaded that it would be 
wrong to refrain from going ahead at this time as long as reasonable con- 
trols do exist. I view that, I must confess, as the principal issue. 
Second, the scientific community deserves enormous praise. I am speak- 
ing as a member of the public, and I feel very strongly about this, for 
bringing this issue to the fore. People have said it is unprecedented, and 
I certainly agree with that. If Dr. Berg and his colleagues do not receive 
a Nobel Prize for Medicine, then they should receive it of Peace. 
(Laughter. ) 
Not to say there has not been controversy, but the process that he and 
his colleagues set in motion, which has resulted in our being here, deserves 
all kinds of public recognition which it may never get, at least not 
adequately. 
My conclusion is that having taken the initiative, the scientific com- 
munity should be allowed to keep that initiative in attempting to control 
the proper use of these research techniques. My fear is that having taken 
the initiative you may not take enough steps to keep that initiative. That 
is the basic thing I want to discuss for a few moments. 
I would like to touch briefly on issues of substance, but primarily, 
Don, I will send these to you in a letter. 
I think there is a question of the physical containment, and that much 
greater attention must be paid in the guidelines to the limitations on phys- 
ical containment. I consider the use of the SV40 as just extraordinarily 
unpalatable to the public, unless it can be explained in much, much, much 
greater detail, and all of the statements I have heard yesterday and today 
about this being relatively innocuous are documented with reference to the 
scientific literature in a terribly unconvincing fashion. 
To use any virus that produces cancer in animals, in test animals in 
a way that is not subject to the most severe limitations, this raises all 
kinds of questions in my mind, and I am certain in the minds of the public. 
I would like to see serious consideration given, both to NIH emphasis 
on development of the EK2 and EK3, and indeed, even approaching the concept 
[333] 
