DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

   PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
   BETHESDA. MARYLAND 20014

August 11, 1976

Dr. Maxine Singer
Labor at ory of Biochemistry
National Cancer Institute
Building 37, Rm. 4A01

Dear Maxine:

This letter is to ask your reaction to an idea that I have had
concerning the ticklish problem of fairness and honesty in
adherence to the spirit of the guidelines on recombinant DNA.
Obviously, the guidelines a2p;y to only 8, fraction of the labor-
atories in the world, or ~VPT~ :R the U. s., that will be doing
such research. Mmy camtries t5l.i ad9gl; cmparable guidelines,
but it seems likely that sow wjll aot. Will. such a country, or
some lab in it beccjne t'ne mecca ?'or s5btaticzls? What will the
pressures be on scientists in the V. Sm otkr countries that
adopt the guidelines if there is a ?i&g;,rFt17_t9 or ever, a significant
degree of covert disregx-d of tl:sp by a fev sudi 7&s?

Is it reasonable to expect all scieutisls %o adhere to the guide-
lines,  even if they feel they are unnecessary and are not legally
required to adhere to them?
to get this principle accepted is a major problem for the general
scientific community.  If this is accepted, how can broad compli-
ance be obtained?

I think that it is, and that trying

A related problem is how does a student, technician,  or fellow blow
the whistle on a researcher who he thinks is acting irresponsibly,
without unduly jeopardizing his own career?
has come to my attention twice, where a graduate student  sees what
he thinks are flagrant violations of the letter or spirit of the
guidelines, but does not know where to turn for backing.

This type of problem

-2-

To me, the approach to both these problems is peer pressure.
It is a powerful lever, it extends across national borders,
it's free, flexible, and requires no input from politicians.
To use it for the problems cited above, might require only
setting up some type of informal or formal "rumor control
center" where complaints could be received and inquiries sent
out to the accused lab, stating what the apparent problem is,
and asking for clarification, without revealing the identity
of the complainant. If this were handled by well known
scientists vhc: have :io vested interest,  I vculc! he rat.her
surprised if the inquiries would be aswered untruthfully,
callously, or legalistically. If the response was not satis-
factory to the initial and further inquiries, an escalating
sequence of pressures could be brought to bear: inquiries to
colleagues, then to the university president or institute
director, advice to key journals that the biohazard statement
in papers from that lab may not be truthful, the possibility of
circulating the names of persons considered flagrant, unresponsive
offenders, with consequent threat of ostracism from invitations
for seminars and meetings, from colleagues going to work in the
tainted lab, etc.

This is admittedly a very thorny area, but such a program might
be an immensely useful device.

Please think about it, and send me your thoughts.

Sincerely ymrs,

Wallace P. "Rowe , M. D.
Chief, Laboratory of Viral Diseases
National Institute of
Infectious Diseases

Allergy and