explore the implications of a situation in which legal liability 
will be difficult to establish. In particular, you should 
address the question of whether it is justified to initiate 
research before an effective monitoring system has been articu- 
lated in relation to the legal system. Our view is that the 
absence of such articulation violates the right of the public 
to security and access to proof of liability in the case of an 
accident. 
Finally, we wish to emphasize the confusion and uncertainty 
which surrounds crucial aspects of DNA recombinant experimentation. 
Little is known about the nature and level of risk; the theoreti- 
cal basis of the guidelines is questionable, as Robert Sinsheimer 
has pointed out; the efficacy of biological containmant is not 
assured. In the light of these conditions, we think that proli- 
feration of laboratories presents a grave risk to the security 
and well-being of the public. We recommend that you explore 
alternative policies for the research which would provide a much 
greater degree of protection, specifically, the possibility of 
limiting research to a few strictly controlled national facilities 
until the risks are better defined. As you are no doubt aware, 
scientists at a number of leading institutions have grave doubts 
about the advisability of proliferation. We think that there 
would be considerable support for mutual exploration of this 
alternative policy. 
We would appreciate your attention to this letter and a 
response before action is taken to disseminate the guidelines. 
Sincerely , 
Arthur Schwartz 
Professor of Mathematics 
Susan Wright 
Assistant Professor of 
Humanities 
Marc Ross 
Professor of Physics , 
Director, Residential College 
Robert P. Weeks 
Professor of Humanities 
Max Heirich 
Associate Professor of 
Sociology 
(Signatures attached) 
[Please address correspondence to the first two named] 
[ 533 ] 
