STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305 
DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY 
February 17, 1976 
Dr. Donald S. Fredrickson 
Director 
National Institutes of Health 
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 
PAUL BERG 
Jack, Lulu and Sam Willson 
Professor of Biochemistry 
Dear Dr. Fredrickson, 
First I want to express my deep appreciation for the invitation 
to participate in the meeting of your Advisory Committee on the matter 
of Recombinant DNA Guidelines; second, there is my sincere admira- 
tion for your wisdom in calling this meeting and for the efficient and 
extremely fair manner in which it was conducted. Without your skillful 
direction or a less sympathetic concern that all points of view be heard, 
the meeting would have been a useless exercise. 
i 
But now the responsibility for decision rests with you. Do we 
proceed with this research and under what conditions? This same ques- 
tion confronted the NAS Committee on Recombinant DNA Molecules at 
its meeting in April of 1974, and then challenged the participants of the 
Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules when they met just 
a year ago. Though the question can be put simply, the answer is far 
more complex. The choices, it seems to me, are limited. First, 
recombinant DNA research could be banned or postponed in all labora- 
tories or institutions supported by U.S. government funds presumably to 
eliminate or postpone the hypothesized risks; but that action would cost 
us dearly in scientific progress at one of the most important and poten- 
tially rewarding frontiers of biomedical research. And, since other 
nations might not adopt that course, the protection we would be seeking 
could be ephemeral. Second, research with recombinant DNA molecules 
could be unleashed and thereby promote as vigorously as we could the 
attainment of the potential benefits from this line of investigation; the 
risks could be advertised, recommendations for their containment could 
be provided and the expectation for compliance left to the conscience of 
the investigator as well as the self-interest of the supporting institutions. 
Both solutions, I believe, are unacceptable to the large majority of the 
scientific community, the public and its representatives in government. 
The third choice is to proceed with this research cautiously, under a 
yellow light if you will, feeling our way and learning as we go, always 
prepared to step back if the light flickers red but ready to advance vigor- 
ously where the signals flash green. 
The third option was the clear choice of the NAS Advisory Com- 
mittee on Recombinant DNA Research and was endorsed nearly unanimously 
[ 466 ] 
