72 Jane Street • New York, New York 10014 • ( 212 ) 675-591 1 
Friends of the Earth 
- 2 - 
2) Legal liability 
In the event of viral infections er contagions affecting the public, who 
would be liable: the experimenter, the laboratory, the university? Would 
existing malpractice insurance suffice? Would an unlimited liability law 
be advisable ®r necessary to protect the public? 
3 Regulation, inspection and enforcement 
Proposed NIH guidelines lean on self -regulation, and seem to be set up to 
promote and permit unhampered research, not to question or impede it if 
and where necessary. Both self -regulation and government regulation have 
inherent problems in that the real hazards might be underplayed or are 
assumed to have solutions (with problem and solution defined by scient- 
ists, not the public). Status and prestige of important biological research 
carry an impetus that might tend to denigrate public criticism or concern, 
and could lead in turn to the rationazliation that scientific freedom and 
research are being "stifled" . Scientists need reminding that the benefits 
of their research are worth no mere than the public thinks they are worth, 
and that public interest research carries heavy responsibilities that may 
require restrictions and accountability beyond that which scientists be- 
lieve adequate. 
h) Social and ethical problems 
The first question that needs to be asked - and answered - regarding cost 
vs. benefit comparison is: who benefits? who is at risk? And if these can 
be defined, who decides that the risk is justified? Who decides which gen- 
etic traits are desirable or undesirable? Who decides when these traits 
or medical problems become serious burdens on the community or society, 
justifying complex costly and possibly dangerous solutions? What are the 
dangers - economic and scientific and social - of overlooking or excluding 
simpler solutions to social problems (population control vs. better nit- 
rogen fixation; genetic counselling or enzyme therapy vs. gene therapy, etc.) 
Is there a danger where complex technologies are involved that the experts 
may tend to dominate out of vested interest in promoting such "beneficial* 
technologies? In brief, is genetic manipulation the proper solution to 
problems that have both a social and medical basis? 
5)P©litical 
It has been said that modern technology is replacing the biosphere with the 
technosphere, abandoning reliance on naturally evolved, internal centrals 
in favor of external technological ones. What are the implications of this 
kind of national policy? Furthermore, common interests in scientific re- 
search may make scientists hesitate to "blow the whistle”' on oolleague3 or 
do anything that might threaten research grants. Recipients of such grants 
may unconsciously tee the line even without external coercion or threat ef 
reprisal. What are the implications ©f increasing centralized control over 
information, technology application, especially with regard to national 
social goals? 
(more) 
[ 5 ^ 3 ] 
