DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20014

 

January 16, 1975

Dr. Aaron Shatkin
Roche Institute of Molecular Biology
Nutley, New Jersey 07110

Dear Aaron:

This letter is to try to communicate some of my thoughts on the
recombinant DNA problen.

I think that the decisions on handling this technology must be

made from a very conservative, self-defensive point of view.

Public opinion and governmental policies are clearly moving away
from unquestioning approval of all actions of biomedical scientists,
as evidenced by the Boston cases and politicized setting of
research priorities.

It is very significant that in popular art there are two stereo-
types of the research scientist, which are diametrically opposed
to each other: the brilliant, self-effacing servant of mankind
(Arrowsmith, the mythologized Jonas Salk, Albert Sabin in many
parts of the world), and the equally brilliant mad scientist,
beginning with Dr. Frankenstein and presented in hundreds of
science fiction movies on brain transplants, immortality serums,
and monster creations. Is this paradoxical view only a
reflection of the sad fact that it is far easier for an artist
to make evil interesting and exciting than it is to make
"goodness" worth looking at twice? Is it an example of endowing
the mysterious with extreme attributes? Or is it an expression
of an attitude that we scientists dare ignore only at great
risk? I suspect the latter is true.

Where is the dividing line between Arrowsmith and Dr. Frankenstein?
At what unhappy point does the public decide that the mad
scientist stereotype is the true one? The answer of course hinges
on motivation: the healer~saint has no ego; the experiment pro-
duces monsters when it is done to satisfy the scientist's ego.
What I am saying is that I think there is a great potential
undercurrent of distrust of the biomedical scientist, which
has been only dimly recognized. The danger posed by the
nuclear physicist is the precedent; the avalanche of medical
ethical problems raised in the past few years is an indication
that the potential impact of biomedical research is widely
recognized. The minute that the public and its governmental
representatives decide that the biomedical community has been
hypocritical in making its life and death decisions ~ that
is, that we are acting to further our own ego interests while
justifying our actions by citing the common good (i.e., the
healer saint is unmasked as the mad scientist in disguise)

we are in for a violent reaction.

I think that the major guiding principle in dealing with
these problems involving unevaluatable theoretical risks is:
We must be sure that all possible measures are being taken to
assure that any conceivable damage is far less than the
foreseeable benefits. Think of a risk-benefit analysis in
these terms:

Benefit Risk
Known or likely A Cc
Theoretical B D

The comparison must be between D and A, not A-C, B-C, or B-D.

To minimize D/A, ways should be sought to make D=0. This
requires moving slowly, one step at a time, based on what is
known to be without risk.

I think that a research program, whose objective is to develop
a "risk-free" bacterium-plasmid system, is the way to go, and
that the moratorium should stay in effect until this goal is
attained. Given the knowledge and technology in bacterial
genetics, I would imagine that many non-commensal bacteria
could be found carrying suitable plasmids that cannot be
transferred to commensals, and that the details of these
systems could be worked out and a prototype selected within
two years. Given such an organism together with research
data on how it acts when fed to and injected into mammals,
the field could be opened completely, without committees,
inspectors, licenses, and the rest of the horrors. I don't
think that two years, or even five, would be too high a
price.

Sincerely yours,

Cg

Wallace P.”Rowe, M.D.

Chief, Laboratory of Viral
Diseases

National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases