January 7, 1977 ur. Kooert Sinsiieiner ilivision of Siology C a 1 i torn i a I ~i s t it ut e o f Te c nno logy Pasadena, CA 9llc)3 You may reinember that just before the Deginning of the 31PI Congres- aionai briefing on Jecernber 14 vJe taltikcl for a mile. I told you that I iiau heard that so.ne recosbiiiat ion experisecits were being conducted in your Lao. You tileu told :ne about your interest in Lie %ifti yeiies. As I reca1.l t,ie conversation, you indicated tnat you were taking, or were planning tc, take, "Liif'l 2enes froa c. coli cells into wnicn taey nad veen transferred (by "natural" processes, not by recow>inonr 9iqA tecnniques) and insert t1ie:a by recosvinsnt ONA tecttriiques in .nore Conveniciit E. coli vectors. iou also indicated an interest in usin? these aaterials, in tile future, in connection witn crown gall tu!nor. bur Conversation was cut snort oy otners, and by tne briefing itself. -- --- - --- L'HO days later 1 left for a long holiday. Ortrin; that ti.3e I thoug.it ai>out our conversation, particularly in reference to the puolic statesents tnat you ;lave mite regardiag toe Guidelines and recombinant MA experi- mnts. &id L concluded t:iat, at least in my view, your two activities, na&dely tile experidents and your aqzressive actions in opposition to the Guidelines, were inconsistent. 9poa 3y return, therefore, L read your Decermer 20 "stateinent" with sane interest, and finally witn stlrprise and no little distress. You state tLiat it is "allepd" that you are enqaged in recombinant UALI research. tSut tne statecient itself and riie experiinents you described to me indicate tnat you are in fact doinq so. The Guidelines do nave specific recocmendat ions for experinent s involving UNA froa species that exchange genes in nature. And certainly, while the recomendad contain- dent is in qeneral low, specific requireinents do exist, especially when the "foreign" DclA itlay not De totally innocuous. hardly be considered without potential harm; indeed many of our colleaquzs have mrried very specifically about tile possible effects af sucti genes, in the context of recornbinant OriA experiaents. Further, problems that nay arise fro3 tne use of Agrobacterium II turnefaciens I_-- Iiave been discussed and ar2 specifically referred to in the Guidelines. he %if" genes could --- Altiiougtl you iadicate -2- in tile "state,nsnt" that rne latter experiments will oe done under full containneat, I at3 troubled by your position on this ciatter. If you feel so strongly tinat tile Guidelines are inadequate that you are ispelled to unclzrtau the nationwide curupaign you have been conzuctinq, how can you personally undertake cxperi sents you believe to be potentially so terribly hsr;aiul? You mist certainly realize that your statements and puolisned articles can onLy be weakened in their influence an others by your activities. for pic personally, ay previous total oelief in your sincerity :ias Decn seriously maken. Tne otlliqation I felt to consider caretully jour arqumnts nas oeen undermined. 1 do jistinguisn uetween your persorial activities and your unwil- linqness to impose your views on colleagues at Cal Tech and I understand your "stateiient" in that reqard. But agaiil there are ii;lportant inconsis- tencies. I tilink it is iqortant that you realize tnat your public activities have in fact interfered :aost draioatically dith the ability of collea~ues in atner institutions to proceed with "legal" work, witnin tcie tiuidelines. for exaizple, trte influence of your position on the Hayor and City Council ot' Carnoridge, and tne Friends of trie Eartn cannot be denied. lr is both direct, and indirect, in that others nave exploited your atateaants and your distinquisned reputation. r'inally, 1 would point: out to you tnat triose who are suspicious of the tionesty and .uotives of scientists and of science anyway will see 3upport for their suspicioas in tnis situation. This vi11 surely increase tne diificulties in our efforts to deal rationally and openly with tne proulens raised sy rese-srcli. Sincere1;r yours,