202 
want my eyes to be knocked out on this, and I think we need to come forward 
with any of these stories ahead of time, and realize that we can talk about 
physical containment, but some scientists do get a little sloppy sometimes, 
no offense. But we need to do something in these guidelines to make sure 
that our actual laboratory conditions and things are being checked up on and 
are not being sloppy. 
There has been a lot of talk here about we don't want any risk involved 
in these things, and I can't buy that 100 percent, because this is not a no- 
risk society. There are risks in anything you do. The coal miner is risk- 
ing his neck, the guy building a tunnel somewhere is risking his neck. 
So I think that point is being over-emphasized. I think we need to 
look here at a minimal risk, and I agree with what everybody has said al- 
ready, let us clarify what those risks are. 
My question on what is the punishment for not following these guide- 
lines, which Dr. Dodds also brought up still hasn't really been answered. 
I don't know, are we going to get into a new era here where we are talking 
about white coat crimes along with white collar crimes? I don't know what 
the answers to these are, that is why I am asking. I think we need to get 
these things squared away. Is somebody going to hold back on some research 
that he did that is beyond the guidelines and wait until those guidelines 
are modified and then jump out of his lab and say hey, look, and get his 
Nobel Prize or whatever. 
So I would like to see that punishment thing looked at a little bit 
more. 
I very strongly do recommend this review clause. I think that that is 
a great thing built in. As part of that review clause I think every group 
that is represented here today, and I noticed a big effort was made to in- 
clude public interest groups, I think now is the time for all of us to start 
working on the programs to discuss this type of issue in the public sector, 
find out what the concerns are, don't present it from a one-sided point of 
view, but hold forums to discuss this thing, and show all the different 
points of view so that when the next review process comes up you will have 
even more public input, and even more of what I would say a glory for the 
initial thing you started here. 
My final point, then, is that I think we should all be working here to 
establish bioethics as perhaps a new standard much like the space program 
became for coffee. We want to look at bioethics as being a standard to look 
up to, and that can be applied to other things. 
We comment on the space program, and everybody says well, if we can go 
to the moon why can't we get a good cup of coffee. Well, that is because 
the space program has become a standard of excellence, something to look up 
[343] 
