JUN 9 7 1977

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20014

 

JUN 21 1977

Dr. Joshua Lederberg

Professor of Genetics

Department of Genetics

School of Medicine

Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, California 94305

Dear Josh:
This is in reply to your letter of 14 June.

I want first to address some inferences that I have drawn from your
remarks on how the Ehrlich experiments briefly became an abortive
cause celebre.

Ehrlich's paper and a companion piece on B. subtilis infection in

a seriously compromised host were sent to me by Larry Horowitz during
the week of May 25. As he alleged, other members of the Kennedy
subcommittee staff viewed this study as evidence of a serious “loophole”
in the DNA guidelines.

I was invited to meet with the staff on May 27 to explain the crucial
differences between natural recombination and the "novel recombinant
events" which are the properly narrow subject of the guidelines. It
was a chilling experience. The prevailing attitude favored restrictions
upon laboratories to reduce the occurrence of phenomena proceeding
naturally with a frequency unlikely to be affected by any human law.
The importance of continued examination of natural recombination,

even for the parochial purpose of permitting some rational regulation
under the present guidelines, had to be carefully and patiently
defended again. The meeting seem to have been successful; at least,
the June 14 print of the Senate Bill contains no catastrophic extension
of coverage.

A statement in the press subsequent to the May 27 encounter and tothe
effect that NIH had established a committee to examine the Ehrlich
experiments is false. It refers to the Krause Committee created
months ago to evaluate safety practices in research programs involving
mutagenesis and other forms of genetic recombination, with particular
attention to better classification of hosts and vectors.
Page 2 ~ Dr. Joshua Lederberg

I hope I do not need to defend the quality of our perceptions here

of which are the true and which are the false lines being drawn
between scientific inquiry and protection of the environment or the
public interest. Comments on tactical errors are always welcome,
however; and I will admit to over-optimism in the past about contain-
ment of damage likely to be afflicted upon science--and in the long
run, the public interest--by the hurricane of political action that
now envelopes us.

I am cheered by your letter to Senator Cranston. Both the substance
and the form are to be applauded. I only urge you not to consider
this effort enough. What Voltaire called "ingenious reason" is
preparing to flee in this Age of Disenchantment. You must continue
to be one of the strongest and steadiest voices urging that spirit.
to remain.

With kindest regards,

Sincerely yours,

Donald S. Fredrickson, M.D.
Director