March 11, 1970

Dr. Philip Handler

National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20418

Dear Phil,

Thank you-for your kind remarks about my column dated
February 28th. In retrospect I have to dispute your remark
about its being “lucid” but I agree the subject is of crucial
isportance and I wili try to deal with it better on future
occasions.

Your note reminds me that I have not properly continued
our correspondence concerning questions of conflict of interest.
I have to admire the candor with which you expose the personal
impact of your own concerns about this matter. Obviously you
have made a very considerable sacrifice and I deeply reepect
you for it.

I muet still ask, however, whether the council has taken
any formal action on this subject. It seems to me of outmost
importance that no plausible imputation of self-interest be
attached to Academy connected activities and this may have
very little to do with the reality of the objectivity and balance
of the membership of various committees. As I think more about it
I might have to recommend some procedure whereby the potential
sourcee of conflicted interest, on particularly crucial deliberations,
be openly stated. I realize this goes even further than the re-
quirements for federal consultants. The people who are most vulneaghhae
are those who are not primarily connected, say, with any industrial
effort but whe can be made to appear in a very bad light if they
hold consultantships or other interests that are not publicly
visible at the time a report is published. I do not think very much
detail is needed about it but I think a cautionary postscript at
the end of important reporte might simply indicate that committee
menber so-and-so has reported “a potential source of conflict of
intereat having to do with organizations such-and-such" without in-
dicating in any further detail what those relationships are. When
the organization in question is vitally effected by the conclusions
of the report the consultant might voluntarily wish to spell out
his relationship in more detail.

over
Dr .P. Handler - 2 - 3/11/70

I realize that this does sound overelaborate but I really do
fear for an explosive repercussion on the credibility of scientific
judgement if we do not lean over backwards in this matter.

I also included some clippings on the stockmarket response to
the cyclamate decision which should have been clarified. It is only
common sense that a consultant do nothing in his financial affairs
at or about the time of the release of new decisions that could
possibly be construed as having taken unfair advantage of privileggéd
information prior to publication. This matter is already very well
covered by SCC regulations but I believe that there will be situations
where congultante will again have to lean backwards to be very sure
that nothing they do during critical periods could possibly be mis-
construed on retrospective examination.

At any rate, you had indicated that the matter might have been
discussed at the last council meetings and I would be interested in
what the outcome was.

By the way of postscript let me say that just like everyone else
I have my own entanglements and it is precigely to avoid the embarrassment
of having to make any special pleading that I would prefer that there be
a regular and well-established procedure for reciting potential conflicts
in a routine way. Much hangs on this.

Sincerely yours,

Joshua Ledesberg
Professor of Genetics

Enclosures
JL/rr